Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Sea Empress

Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the marine accident investigation branch report on the Sea Empress. [8785]

The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): The chief inspector has advised me that he hopes to complete his report and submit it to me as soon as possible. He has to consider comments made to him by those he has consulted under the marine accident investigation regulations and amend his draft report if he considers it appropriate to do so in the light of those comments. The report will be published after it has been submitted to me.

Mr. Ainger: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the inquiry will cover Lord Donaldson's recommendations, which were made some 20 months before the Sea Empress ran aground, and that the recommendations about the placing of a powerful tug in the western approaches were not implemented either by him or by his predecessor, the present chairman of the

Conservative party? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that no Minister has been interviewed by the MAIB on those important issues? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, bearing it in mind that we need a full and open investigation of those matters, that if Ministers are not held to account or questioned on those matters, the only conclusion can be that the part of the report covering ministerial responsibility will be a whitewash?

Sir George Young: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the inspector will of course cover everything that is relevant to the conduct of his inquiry into why the accident happened.
On the second point, it is the case that no Minister has been interviewed by the inspector.
On the third point, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider what he said. The inspector is carrying out an inquiry under procedures set out by the House of Commons. It is already clear that he will not refrain from criticising those whom he believes should be criticised, but it is a betrayal of natural justice for the hon. Gentleman to say in advance that, if the report does not produce the verdict that he prefers, the verdict is wrong.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is encouraging that the marine pollution control unit report concluded that the clean-up operation following the incident went well? Does he also agree that it is an elementary breach of natural justice that what was essentially a draft report has been leaked to the media?

Sir George Young: On the first point, the MPCU report has just been published and it shows that, with the co-operation of many voluntary and statutory organisations, the damage done by that serious incident was minimised and that the impact on the tourism industry in Pembroke was not nearly as bad as had initially been feared.
On my hon. Friend's second point, I take seriously the selective and inaccurate leaking of a chief inspector's draft report. That should be condemned, as should the leaking of any confidential document that may adversely affect the reputations of innocent parties.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, amid all the environmental damage and the anguish to the hotel industry and fishermen in the area, one fact stands out: the exemplary way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has represented his constituents?

Sir George Young: That may be for others to judge later this year. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has been diligent about questioning Ministers, as have a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Cyclists

Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to improve safety on the road for cyclists. [8784]

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. John Bowis): A third fewer cyclists were killed or seriously injured on the roads in 1995 than in the 1981 to 1985 annual average. We will build on this improvement through the national cycling strategy by encouraging local authorities to provide for safe cycling in their transport policies and programmes.

Mr. Soley: Is the Minister aware that, when I occasionally cycle from Shepherd's Bush to Westminster, I feel like a by-election waiting to happen? As I have no wish to be the person responsible for restoring the Government's majority, will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the majority of people who cycle feel unsafe and that is why the figures are so low? Will he publish a map of cycle routes—particularly in London—that are regarded as safe or can be protected? Will he take steps to restore the minor works budgets to local authorities? It is no good the Government saying that they are encouraging local authorities, when they are taking the grant away.

Mr. Bowis: Let me not speculate on any absences from this House, temporary or permanent.
The hon. Gentleman knows that, for the first time, we have in place a national strategy for cycling and that we have put serious money into cycling, with some £42 million being spent on Sustrans for the national network. There is also the £4 million programme for the London cycling network this year, which we have extended for the coming year by another £4 million. The hon. Gentleman will also know that most boroughs produce maps of cycle routes. Some 50 local transport packages with a cycling element are planned for this year, with 65 packages planned for next year, and we are providing resources and advice for cycling networks. If our target is to increase cycling, it is important that it is done safely.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Given that the level of cycling deaths is the lowest since records were first compiled in

1927, is it not entirely right and desirable that the Government should continue to encourage cycling on our roads? In that context, would it not be a good idea to revisit the question of cyclists being a danger to themselves by going through red traffic signals, as they are doing more and more frequently?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend highlights an important point. Safe cycling is enhanced by responsible cyclists. People who cycle through red lights—or cycle without lights or on the pavement—are not enhancing the good name of cycling and are doing nothing for their own safety or that of other people. It is important that we continue our training programmes for children, and it is good that some 40 per cent. of children now receive cycling training before the age of 12. We must continue our campaigns to improve the quality of cycling, and we are about to consult on the mandatory fitting of bells and lights to cycles at the point of sale.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would it not be a good way of ensuring that more mothers were confident about allowing their children to ride to school if we put money into research into safety, particularly of children? Perhaps we ought to look at the provision of cycle helmets on a mandatory basis. Before any decisions are taken, should we not assess the practical steps that the Government can take to keep children safe on the roads?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Lady is right. We are engaged in research and campaigns to encourage safer cycling by children, and our cycle safe campaign was very much geared towards the wearing of helmets. We can encourage safe cycling from an early age if schools continue to work with local authorities and road safety officers, and mothers can then have confidence that their children can cycle safely. The Department will continue to support local authorities that make sensible plans in that direction.

South Thamesside Development Route

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on Government support for the south Thamesside development route, phase 4. [8783]

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): My hon. Friend is quite rightly a strong supporter of the south Thamesside development route, phase 4. We have undertaken to fund the scheme through transport supplementary grant, at an estimated cost of £14.1 million.

Mr. Arnold: Will not this project be, in effect, the Northfleet town bypass? The town will have, on one side, the Thames tunnel of the channel tunnel rail link and, on the other, Ebbsfleet international station. During the construction of those large projects, heavy goods vehicles will rumble through the town, as there is currently no other route for them. Does my hon. Friend accept that the people of Northfleet are fed up to the back teeth with Kent county council, which has delayed the introduction of the project? Two years after the public exhibition, the council is now involved in an inspector's inquiry. Will my


hon. Friend give an assurance that, as and when Kent county council does its work properly, he will ensure that the inquiry is carried out as fast as possible?

Mr. Watts: We are waiting for Kent county council to contact us about suitable dates for the public inquiry. When it has done so, we shall make the arrangements for the inquiry as rapidly as possible and take the scheme through its statutory procedures without undue delay.

A38

Sir Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the commencement of the design and other preparatory work for the A38 trunk road improvement scheme between Carkeel and Stoketon Cross; and if he will make a statement. [8782]

Mr. Watts: The A38 Saltash to Stoketon Cross improvement scheme has been retained in the main road programme. Design work on the scheme will be resumed when resources allow.

Sir Robert Hicks: Is my hon. Friend aware that that much-needed road improvement will help to provide access to the Broadmoor Farm business park and that, when Caradon district council considered the application, it was obliged by the Highways Agency to impose a condition that will not allow that exciting development, with a job creation potential of 2,500, to go ahead until the new road is complete? Surely, in view of its importance to the local economy, he should provide the necessary funds for the design and preparatory work now.

Mr. Watts: I am well aware of the importance of the scheme to that imaginative development. That is why, in the 1995 review of the road programme, I separated that part of the improvement from a larger scheme. My understanding is that the developers are content with the condition that has been imposed by the district council following the direction from the Highways Agency, but we have made it clear to both the council and the developers that the agency is willing to negotiate with the developers on a more limited road improvement, to enable the scheme to be occupied; the development may proceed, but the condition is that it may not be occupied until the necessary road improvements have been carried out. We remain ready to negotiate on the extent of the improvements.

Mr. Bradley: On behalf of the millions of motorists who may use the A38 trunk road improvement and similar trunk roads throughout the country, I ask the Minister to confirm that he is considering his senior management proposal to abolish the option of a six-month road fund licence and the option of the purchase of licence stamps, as a cost-cutting exercise—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a very specific question, and the hon. Gentleman must either be specific or resume his seat—one or the other.

Mr. Bradley: The abolition of the six-month road licence will be used by motorists on the A38 improvement—

Madam Speaker: Order. That must be it. The hon. Gentleman cannot widen a question as specific as this.

Heathrow-Plymouth Flights

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Airways regarding the slots into Heathrow from Plymouth. [8781]

Sir George Young: I have recently written to the chief executive of British Airways to pass on local concerns about the future of the Brymon Airways service between Heathrow, Plymouth and Newquay.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, if the merger between British Airways and American Airlines goes ahead, the President of the Board of Trade could make British Airways give up a substantial number of slots in and out of Heathrow, which in turn could seriously affect flights from Plymouth and Newquay to Heathrow? Is he further aware that the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has also said that those air links are vital to investment in the south-west? When will the Government do some joined-up thinking on the question? May I suggest that the Secretary of State's Department make a start by ring-fencing the slots to protect the flights to and from Heathrow and the south-west, which would in turn protect jobs and investment in west Devon and Cornwall?

Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is holding consultations on proposals concerning the alliance between British Airways and American Airlines, and I do not propose to make any comment on those consultations, which are fairly and clearly a matter for him.
I recently received a deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who made clear the importance of the service. As I understand it, Brymon Airways considers the service to be profitable. The latest figures that I have seen show that custom is increasing. The service is well used, and there are no plans to vary it.

Mr. Harris: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the importance of this service to the economy of Cornwall and of Plymouth and west Devon? Today, still more job losses in Cornwall have been announced at English China Clays. Will my right hon. Friend receive a delegation of both Government and Opposition Members from the south-west to discuss this important issue and the absolute need to safeguard this facility for the south-west?

Sir George Young: My hon. Friend extends an invitation that I find difficult to decline. Although I have recently received a deputation of south-west Members, in view of the strength of feeling on the matter, if my hon. Friend contacts my private office to arrange a meeting I shall be pleased to see him.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State not understand that one reason why British Airways' American tie-up should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is the threat that it poses to consumer interests? This matter affects consumer interests in the south-west. Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) correct to demand the matter's referral? Is it not bad form that the


Government are discussing BA bailing them out with millennium money at the same time as this matter is before the Government? It should be demonstrably clear that nothing will impede a fair and appropriate consideration of the need for referral, uncluttered by the nice offers made by British Airways in respect of the wider United Kingdom interest.

Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but he has made it at the wrong Question Time. Referral rests not with my Department but with that of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Humberside International Airport

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require the privatisation of Humberside international airport. [8780]

Sir George Young: It is our policy to encourage privatisation of local authority-owned airports, as we believe that the commercial approach of the private sector benefits their operation and efficiency. The policy is working, and I hope that the owners of Humberside airport will consider the benefits of private ownership.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but he and his predecessors have been encouraging Humberside airport to go private for many years, and no notice has been taken. Is it not time that the Government introduced legislation to require Humberside airport to be put into private hands? Even East Midlands airport, which used to have Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council among its shareholders, has been put in private hands.
Humberside no longer exists; the term is not understood by anyone. Why is the name not changed and why do the Government not introduce legislation? I cannot fly from my Humberside constituency to London because the airport is still run by a Labour-controlled group of local authorities. The only way in which those authorities will respond to my right hon. Friend's encouragement is if he introduces legislation. The time for encouragement is over; the time for legislation is before us.

Sir George Young: Exciting ideas for the Conservative manifesto are always welcome, but, as my hon. Friend implied, the existing policy has been successful in persuading a number of local authorities, many of them Labour controlled, to dispose of their interests in local airports such as Liverpool, East Midlands and Cardiff. I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's proposition on compulsion.

Mr. Gunnell: I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that there would be no Humberside airport but for the strategic authority, which represented Humberside as a whole, that developed it. Will he ensure that that strategic approach is continued by the successor authorities and that no local authority-owned airport is privatised against the will of its owners?

Sir George Young: The position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made clear, is that the Government are making good progress

by persuasion. Many local authorities understand the advantage of privatising their airports to allow them access to capital that would not have been available to them had they remained in the public sector. We can debate on another occasion whether Humberside airport would have come about without the existence of a strategic authority. I hope that the new authorities responsible for Humberside will see the good progress made by local authority airports that have been privatised, which, in conjunction with private sector capital, have expanded in a way that would not otherwise have been possible.

Rail Freight

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the volume of rail freight has changed in the past five years. [8779]

Mr. Watts: In 1991, rail carried 134.8 million tonnes of freight, falling to 97.3 million tonnes in 1994, but rising again to 103.2 million tonnes in 1995. The key to rail freight's revival is privatisation. New private sector freight companies are attracting new traffic to the railway.

Mr. Spring: In thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I particularly welcome the announcement last autumn on rate increases and the rail freight grant? Does he share my view that that will encourage the movement of freight on to rail, which is good not only for motorists but for the environment?

Mr. Watts: I certainly hope that the increase in the mileage rate for motorway traffic will attract more of that road freight on to rail. Since 1979, more than 150 rail freight grants have been awarded, securing to rail the equivalent of about 3 million lorry journeys a year. About one in eight of all types of rail freight traffic have benefited at some time from grant.

Mr. Sutcliffe: If the Government are serious about rail freight, why has the freight facility grant not been fully spent? Of the £70 million available, why was only £32 million spent between 1985 and 1996? Is it not the truth that the Government have no intention of trying to increase rail freight?

Mr. Watts: On the contrary, the reason why I have adjusted the mileage rates, and why we have under way a review of ways in which administrative procedures for the grants could be further streamlined, is that we wish the grants to be taken up fully. Evidence shows how effective they are in encouraging new traffic to move off roads on to rail, or to be retained on rail, whereas it might otherwise have been lost to road.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Is it not time for everyone to acknowledge that the best prospects for rail freight are in the private sector and that the whole railway is being transformed by privatisation, which is liberating the management and injecting the capital, as state ownership could never possibly have done? Should we not remind ourselves that we were told that this was all going to be chaotic and disastrous, but the reverse is happening?

Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is entirely right. English, Welsh and Scottish Railway and Freightliners have


impressive investment plans and both have already demonstrated their ability to attract new business for the freight railway. It is in the new private environment that rail freight has its brightest future.

Mr. Chidgey: Is the Minister aware that, in the mad scramble to sell off the passenger franchise for the west coast main line, rail paths that are essential for the efficient operation of freight are being sacrificed? Will he advise the Rail Regulator that, in the negotiations to let passenger franchise, freight capacity must not be reduced?

Mr. Watts: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's initial supposition. The Rail Regulator needs no instructions either from me or from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to discharge his responsibilities to ensure that access to the railway is available both for passenger and for freight traffic.

London Underground

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding proposed investment in London Underground for the next and subsequent financial years. [8778]

Sir George Young: From time to time, I receive representations from a range of organisations and individuals about investment in London's underground rail network.

Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that the representations that the Secretary of State has received lately will have told him that, in the Budget, he and his colleagues produced an investment programme for London Underground for the next few years that will mean that, shortly, we will have the lowest investment for 20 years. Is it not true that there will be nearly £400 million-worth of cuts in essential renewal and maintenance programmes on existing lines? What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to people in London who, because of his cuts, will get worse services, while their fares go up by as much as 20 per cent.

Sir George Young: Next year's grant to London Transport has been protected—there has been no reduction. That should allow investment of about £1.1 billion over three years from Government grant. If we then include all the resources available to London Underground from private finance and elsewhere, that should allow a total of £2.2 billion of investment in London Transport over the three years, including completion of the Jubilee line extension. Far from being low, the investment level in the core network will, on average, be 50 per cent. above the 1980s level and twice the 1970s level, so the gloomy scenario that hon. Gentleman paints is simply not true.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I urge my right hon. Friend to shift his focus from investment in London Underground—on which, as his figures show, the Government have an excellent record—to its future under private enterprise, which would give an opportunity for the higher-quality service that the travelling public so urgently need?

Sir George Young: As my hon. Friend will know, back in October my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said

that we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground. That exercise is now under way and I am heartened by my hon. Friend's support for it.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Is not the experience of passengers and businesses alike that the Government's record on London Underground is a disgrace to London and damaging to the economy? Does it not show how Conservative Members lurch from one extreme to the other when, after slashing maintenance and investment in the tube, all they can now offer for a nightmare Tory fifth term is the extreme of privatisation?
Does the Minister accept that, because of the effects of the overspend on the Jubilee line extension, the estimate he just gave was not a true reflection of what is actually happening on the underground and that, because of the budget that he has imposed on London Underground, there will be damaging and dangerous cuts in investment and maintenance? Is it not time that we had the public-private partnership that is necessary for investment in a first-rate tube and an integrated public transport system that is worthy of the nation's capital?

Sir George Young: The difference between the Opposition and the Government on this subject could not be clearer: Opposition Members allege that we are under-investing, but they are not able to commit themselves to spending one penny more than the Government currently spend. We are investing at double the rate of the 1970s and, in addition, we are prepared to consider privatisation as a means of improving on that record. Londoners will draw their own conclusion as to which of those two approaches is the most constructive.

Northern Line

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new trains London Transport has received for the Northern line; and how many are planned to be delivered in 1997. [8777]

Mr. Bowis: I understand that GEC Alsthom delivered the first new Northern line train to London Underground last month and plans to deliver 23 more trains during 1997. The first trains are expected to enter passenger service from the middle of this year.

Mr. Marshall: As one who has been at the controls of the first new Northern line train, I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that, because those trains come under the private finance initiative, they are immune from any public spending decisions taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor? Will he also confirm that the PFI can be used to finance further developments on the Northern line and that, whenever privatisation has taken place, it has led to strict price controls and increased investment by the private sector?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend puts it succinctly and brilliantly, and I am delighted to learn that he has personally tested the trains and knows the quality of the additional service that has been brought forward by the private sector in support of London's underground. He is right to say that the £400 million that is coming from the private finance initiative in support of those trains means


that Londoners will have the new service earlier and at a price that they do not have to pay themselves. The Northern line is benefiting from new trains and from the refurbishment of 10 stations, and it will go on to benefit from other aspects of the PFI that are currently being planned and proposed by London Underground in respect of power, ticketing and communications.

Ms Glenda Jackson: How can the House attach any credibility to the Minister's reply, when the Government propose to threaten not only the introduction of new rolling stock on the Northern line but the entire underground network with the abyss of privatisation? Does not the sudden advocacy of the extreme right-wing views of the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) show the Government's desire to placate the enemy within rather than to create a modern and properly integrated public transport system for London?

Mr. Bowis: Well, well! The hon. Lady refers not once to the massive investment in London's underground in recent years, or to the programme of future investment. She describes privatisation as a great threat and ignores the fact that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are carefully considering whether the principles of privatisation could apply to London Underground and whether they could do so to the benefit of the London travelling public. If that review finds that privatisation would benefit Londoners, and if the best route to achieve that can be found, Londoners will be pleased and I suspect that, within a few months of its implementation, the Labour party will claim parentage for the privatisation of London Underground.
The Labour party's policy is not a penny more and no new lines for London Underground. As Capital Transport—not a magazine that I normally quote in support—has said:
The lack of clarity surrounding the position of the other main parties should not be tolerated any longer.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend recall how poorly run the Northern line and other underground services were under the unlamented Greater London council, run by the Labour party? Will he ensure that steps are taken and proposals made to maintain improvements that have been made since the GLC abandoned that task and all others, and ensure a better future for the London traveller, who jolly well deserves it?

Mr. Bowis: Yes, like my hon. Friend I recall those days, when the underground was a very poor service and investment was at a minimum. Investment is going into the lines. We have just spoken about investment in the Northern line. About £800 million of modernisation is now being completed on the Central line. Train refurbishments have taken place on the Bakerloo, Circle, Hammersmith and City and Victoria lines and are in hand for the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines.
Under the Government, underground services are improving. The core is being protected and the expansion of the service means new and exciting prospects for travellers in London in future.

North London Line

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure the continuing improvement of rail services on the North London line over the franchise period. [8776]

Mr. Bowis: The improvements to the railway infrastructure on the North London line carried out by Railtrack during the past two years and the commencement in spring 1997 of heavy overhauls of the rolling stock used on the route will provide a solid foundation on which the North London Railways franchisee will build throughout the franchise term.
I also announced on 16 December a further transport policies and programmes grant towards the upgrading of stations on the Gospel Oak to Barking section of that line.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister comment on why the franchise documents that have been dispatched to encourage people to take over the North London line include nothing about new stations, improvements of services, increased train frequency or station safety and pay no regard to the unanimous views expressed by local government and train users of the current appalling state of the line?
The Minister knows the state of the line; two of his ministerial colleagues travelled along it. On the stations, they all gave nice answers to questions about how terrible it was and how it would be improved, but there is nothing in the documents to suggest that there will be any improvement in the appalling service that passengers have to suffer on that line.

Mr. Bowis: I beg leave to differ with the hon. Gentleman. In our previous exchange on the subject, he challenged me to travel unannounced on that line. I did so and experienced the service, and I became aware of where improvements were needed. The reliability and punctuality of the service have greatly improved in the past year or two, but obviously the service needs the investment that will come from privatisation.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the franchising director requires that replacement trains be provided on the Gospel Oak to Barking section of the line by 2000. That could not be a more self-evident improvement in the line. As he knows, we have put money into station improvements three times, first at Haringey Green Lanes, then at Leytonstone High Road, and now Waltham Forest, as the lead borough, will consider where the next tranche of money should go. As he must also know, Railtrack is assessing the scope for further development of that line for freight and passengers. I think that the future looks quite promising.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my hon. Friend find a simpler way of answering the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the fears that he expresses? Similar fears were expressed by all political parties when we were franchising Network SouthWest and the line from Weymouth to Waterloo. Would not a cheap awayday ticket—

Mr. Bowis: A single.

Mr. Bruce: Not a single ticket as we want him to come back to London. Would not an awayday ticket allow the hon. Gentleman to see exactly what is happening—improved services, stations, frequency and punctuality, and reduced fares—which is what my constituents want?

Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right to point to the benefits of privatisation. He highlighted the benefits that have come on lines in his area and asked me to act as post box to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to go on an awayday down the south-west line. With our present majority, I am happy to invite him to go on an awayday any day.

Thames Gateway

Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his priorities for transport investment in the Thames gateway area. [8775]

Mr. Bowis: The transport strategy for London described the Government's strategy for transport investment in the Thames gateway area. It includes construction of the channel tunnel rail link, with stations at Stratford and Ebbsfleet; improvements to the A13 and other trunk roads in London and Kent; the Jubilee line extension; and the proposed package of new river crossings.

Mr. Timms: Does the Minister share my concern about the threat to the prospect of regeneration of the Thames gateway arising from the current investment crisis at London Underground? Is it true, as the Evening Standard reports today, that the reopening of the East London line will be delayed for another two years? Does he deprecate, as I do, the deferral for two years of the planned refurbishment of District line stations in my constituency? The Minister saw for himself recently the condition of East Ham station and talked to staff about their aspirations for refurbishment. How will the Government address the serious crisis in east London and the Thames gateway area, which was precipitated by the catastrophic Budget settlement for London Underground?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was responding on the Budget question, because there is no such budget cut. For the coming year, the figure will be as planned. There is no reduction for London Underground. Indeed, increasing quantities of money will come from London Underground's operating surplus and from the private sector.
On the hon. Gentleman's specific points, as he said, I have visited his borough and many other boroughs on my urban rides to look at facilities, challenges and opportunities, and I have seen the station at East Ham to which he referred. Any decisions on that are for the management of London Transport. There is a lot of speculation about the decisions that may be taken but I am aware of no decisions having been made. Indeed, the board does not meet until next month, so no decisions can have been made. The Northern line river tunnel has been strengthened and has opened on time.

London Transport has announced its expectation for reopening the East London line and I have no reason to doubt its word on that.

Mr. Dunn: Given that the Dartford constituency contains a significant number of projects associated with the Thames gateway concept, will my hon. Friend assure me that his officials will monitor rigorously and robustly the transport infrastructure developments as they take place so that my constituents and people from the south-east region as a whole can gain easy access to Ebbsfleet, Bluewater, and other north Dartford developments for commerce, leisure and housing?

Mr. Bowis: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that officials of the Highways Agency and the transport authorities look carefully at volumes and flows of passengers and at the various developments. A key development will be Ebbsfleet station, which will be looked at carefully in terms of its road and rail connections to the part of Kent to which my hon. Friend refers. As he knows, a number of road schemes are in the programme.

Mr. Spearing: Is not one of the proposals for the Thames gateway the extension of the valuable North London link line from Silvertown across the river to Woolwich arsenal and along the North Kent line to the area of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn)? Is the Minister aware that the Government insist that that should be funded by the PFI? The revenue from about a mile and a half of track will certainly not pay for the capital, so they are effectively blocking an imaginative and sound public proposal.

Mr. Bowis: Nothing has been blocked. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a package of crossings that were highlighted in the report. The Woolwich rail tunnel is one proposal; the Gallions Reach multimodal crossing is another; and the third Blackwall crossing is the third. Those are being considered carefully to see whether they are viable, and progress will be announced in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Catering Staff

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the wages bill for catering staff in 1996–97. [8755]

Mr. A. J. Beith (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): On current estimates, £4.1 million. Estimates for catering and administration staff within this total are not made separately, but there is a separate budget for banqueting and souvenir staff costs, which are borne on a House of Commons Refreshment Department trading account. The approved trading account budget for 1996–97 includes staff costs of £827,000.

Mr. Marshall: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. No Member of the House grudges a


penny that is spent by the Refreshment Department on wages, but many of us feel that when the Department is investing in new facilities, it goes for the gold plated rather than the practical. Will he give us an assurance that that will be considered thoroughly before any new investment is agreed?

Mr. Beith: The details of schemes of improvement in the Refreshment Department are for the Catering Committee and the Accommodation and Works Committee. The Commission has regard to the overall cost, but it must also have regard to staff working conditions and health and safety requirements.

Mr. Faulds: Would it not have been wiser to have increased the poor wages of the catering staff in this place, instead of the ridiculous introduction of an extremely expensive and not very well functioning restaurant, when the previous arrangements were perfectly satisfactory?

Mr. Beith: The Commission was advised that the previous arrangements were not satisfactory from a health and safety point of view. They were not satisfactory in respect of the conditions in which we expect our staff to work. It is not sufficient to pay tribute to our staff: we must also give them satisfactory working conditions.

Disabled Employees

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many Commission staff are disabled. [8754]

Mr. Beith: Twelve staff of the Commission are registered disabled people, but there are other disabled staff employed in Departments of the House who have not registered.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 12 staff out of the very large staff complement in this building is an extremely low proportion? What steps are being taken to increase the number of registered disabled people who can work in this building? What is being done to improve access and other facilities so that disabled people can work on all floors in the building and in a much wider variety of jobs? Recently, people with disabilities, in a delegation to the Select Committee on Social Security, were given no fewer than three different routes to get from the street to present their case before the Committee, and went through a traumatic experience trying to get there. Is it not a disgrace that the Commission has failed to provide proper access to the building?

Mr. Beith: At 0.9 per cent., the proportion of disabled staff is lower than the Commission would like. The Commission would like to employ more disabled people on the staff of the House. It has a policy of showing the availability of all posts to people with disabilities, and of trying to make sure that the facilities available assist people with disabilities to take employment. It has pursued that policy vigorously. On access to the building for staff and visitors, the Commission has sought to implement all the advice that it has been given by the Accommodation and Works Committee and that

Committee's consultants on ways in which access can be improved. The Commission will continue to look favourably at suggestions for improvement of access.

Visitors' Facilities

Mr. Ainger: To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what additional facilities are planned for visitors to the Palace of Westminster. [8753]

Mr. Beith: In its first report of 1992–93, the Catering Committee recommended that the area currently occupied by the Westminster Hall cafeteria should be converted to a visitor centre, but that that should take place only when a suitable alternative was found for the present lunchtime users. The House agreed to the Committee's report on 12 July 1994. The Catering Committee considers that, until the cafeteria in the new parliamentary building is operational, the recommendation for a visitor centre cannot be implemented.

Mr. Ainger: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's answer, but I think that he will agree that it is wholly unacceptable that, although the recommendation for a new visitor centre was accepted in 1994, the plans are no further advanced. Many hon. Members' constituencies are located some distance from London and, when school parties from those areas visit the Palace of Westminster, schoolchildren may catch buses as early as 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning, and they have no opportunity to take any refreshment until they arrive at the House. Will he bring forward plans for the visitor centre so that we can at least offer some refreshment to schoolchildren who travel many miles to visit Westminster?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that is widely shared in the House. If he has some ideas about how the Catering Committee or the Accommodation and Works Committee could deal with the problem, I hope that he will put them to those bodies. At present, 500 people use the Westminster Hall cafeteria at lunchtime and there is a practical problem to be resolved.

Mr. Viggers: Other countries with lesser parliamentary traditions than ours have museums associated with their Parliaments that are well supported and attended. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that if there were a larger parliamentary museum than that housed in the Jewel House—which is not well advertised—it might reduce the number of visitors to Parliament, relieve the pressure and provide an additional attraction?

Mr. Beith: There could be new facilities to depict the history of this building, but I do not think that anything would take the place of schoolchildren and other visitors being able to see the House of Commons Chamber in which debates take place. Therefore, we must organise our affairs so that they can do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Heathrow Airport

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress by the European Community on its review of slots at Heathrow airport. [8774]

Sir George Young: We are awaiting proposals from the European Commission on revisions to the current regulations governing slot allocation at all Community airports.

Mr. Steen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a fearful row is going on in Europe between two socialist Commissioners, Commissioner Kinnock and Commissioner van Miert. As a result, the report about the future of grandfather rights and slot trading in major European airports has been delayed by more than a year. Is that an example of the British Government being unable to do anything because Brussels bureaucracy is sovereign over matters that it decides to investigate?

Sir George Young: We can carry on with the present position, under which a certain amount of slot trading is acceptable. As I said in my original answer, we are awaiting proposals from the European Commission. It has expressed the view that trading is contrary to current regulation, but it remains a grey area. In the meantime, I am not aware of any substantial disadvantage to the United Kingdom civil aviation industry.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Minister appreciate that the best way to relieve pressure on slots at Heathrow would be to grant a second runway to Manchester airport immediately? Hundreds of thousands of people from areas north of Manchester must travel to Heathrow to fly to Strasbourg, Bonn and other destinations in Europe—including the British parliamentary delegations to the European Union, and those to the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, of which I am a member. Therefore, I have a vested interest in the matter. I ask the Secretary of State to take an immediate decision that would bring automatic relief to Heathrow.

Sir George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in introducing a question about Manchester airport as a supplementary to a question about slot allocation. He will be pleased to hear that a decision about the second runway at Manchester is imminent.

Heathrow-London Rail Link

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will report progress on the Heathrow to London rail link. [87731

Sir George Young: Work on the Heathrow express project, financed by BAA plc, is progressing well. It expects to start operating in June 1998.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the project is on schedule and will provide a wonderful facility from the airport direct to Paddington? Is he

confident that additional services may be grafted on to the line to serve other stations in addition to a full express service?

Sir George Young: I confirm what my hon. Friend just said. It is a £350 million investment by the private sector in improving infrastructure in London, which puts a gloss on the debate that we had earlier in Question Time, in which it was implied that improvement could come only through public finance.
As to grafting on further services, I was encouraged to hear that BAA recently announced that it is considering the introduction of a sister service to the Heathrow express. That service, which could start in 1999, would operate between St. Pancras and Heathrow and would include some local stops. That would clearly be of great advantage to the travelling public in London.

London Underground

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the level of investment in safety on London Underground in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996 to date; and what is the planned level for 1997. [8772]

Mr. Bowis: Decisions on investment priorities are a matter for London Underground Ltd. It is impossible to estimate how much money is spent each year on safety because very many projects include some element of safety-related work.

Mr. Hughes: That was a pretty hopeless answer, if I may say so. Did not London Underground warn the Government that its funding for the coming year would put at risk many of the necessary routine safety works that it needs to carry out? Is it not the case that only the most urgent repairs of escalators are being carried out, such that other escalators are often closed and not used? What is the point in ensuring that the brickwork in the East London line tunnels is restored if, at the end of the day, the opening of the line will have to be deferred for a further two years because London Underground cannot carry out basic work on the line and the track?

Mr. Bowis: If I may return the compliment, that was not a very satisfactory supplementary question, because the truth is that any investment in London Underground's track and trains is likely to improve safety. That is what I was saying in my initial answer, and given the real-terms increase in investment, that has to be good news.
In terms of safety, the hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations 1994, London Underground was required to submit a safety case. It did so and its case was approved by the railway inspectorate. From this year, London Underground will produce annual safety plans. The hon. Gentleman can be reassured that—certainly from the Government's point of view and that of the management of London Underground—safety is the top priority, and the good news is that the number of fatal accidents on London's underground fell from 46 in 1990 to 26 last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

EU Legislation

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement about the House's procedures for the scrutiny of EU legislation. [8752]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House's procedures for scrutiny of EC legislation provide for comprehensive and detailed examination of legislation coming before the Council of Ministers. As the Select Committee on European Legislation acknowledged in its recent report on the subject, our system compares extremely well with systems elsewhere in the European Union.

Mr. Jenkin: While I have no doubt that our system compares extremely well with those of our European counterparts, may I, as a member of a Committee that considers EU legislation, explain to my right hon. Friend how topsy-turvy it feels to take part in the legislative process? We deal with extremely significant draft legislation in a Second Reading debate, tucked away in Committee upstairs, and then when the primary legislation emerges to implement European legislation, we have proper scrutiny debates of proposed Acts of Parliament down here. There is no way to bind Ministers or to alter legislation once it has been enacted in Europe. Is that not something that we desperately need to consider at the intergovernmental conference?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have made a number of proposals in the context of the IGC, not least of which is that there should be a minimum of four weeks before a proposal can be adopted by the Council of Ministers, to allow for proper scrutiny by national Parliaments. I am glad to say that that idea has attracted significant support.

Sir James Molyneaux: Will the Lord President consider extending the scope and authority of European Standing Committees A and B, in which we sometimes have quite stimulating debates?

Mr. Newton: I agree that the debates are sometimes stimulating, although I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) appeared to share that view.
As to the general arrangements, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the Select Committee on European Legislation has produced some thoughts on

scrutiny, which will be linked in due course with a report that the Procedure Committee is preparing. We shall look at any suggestions with great care.

Divisions

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many Divisions there have been in the House during 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, and if he will estimate the number likely in the first four months of 1997. [8751]

Mr. Newton: There were 390 Divisions in the House in the 1992–93 Session, 339 in 1993–94, 202 in 1994–95 and 33 so far this Session. I have made no estimate of the likely number of Divisions in the first four months of 1997.

Mr. Hughes: I suggest that it may be fewer than 33, which was the last figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave. Are the Government likely to obtain Royal Assent for all their legislation before the end of the Session? What are the odds on the month when the election will be called? Will it be decided by the Government at their choice or by the Opposition with our votes?

Mr. Newton: I am a politician and not a gambling man, although I occasionally buy a lottery ticket. I do not propose to be drawn on that matter by the hon. Gentleman. However, I will say that I hope and expect that we shall be able to carry out our legislative programme, given that the number of Divisions held so far partly reflects the extensive support for that programme.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not true that the number of Divisions fell dramatically in the past two years principally because the Government called upon the vast majority of their Back Benchers to push through the Jopling recommendations? That resulted in many orders, such as the Common Market orders to which the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) referred, being sent upstairs to Committee. It should be clear to all and sundry that, after the next election, when the Tory party will be in opposition, many Conservative Members will rue the day that they sent all that legislation to Committee.

Mr. Newton: As hon. Members know, the notion that the Jopling changes were rammed through by a Tory majority is far fetched. Total agreement was reached through the usual channels. I accept that the hon. Gentleman did not agree with those changes, but he should take the matter up with his hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who supported them.

Madam Speaker's Statement

Madam Speaker: I would like to make a short statement, for the guidance of hon. Members and others outside the House, about the use of the House emblem.
The crowned portcullis has been used for many years as the emblem of the House of Commons. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has now been formally authorised by licence granted by her Majesty the Queen.
The use of the emblem has been authorised for display on official stationery, publications and circulars, furniture and furnishings used in the Palace of Westminster, souvenir objects and books sold on the premises and club clothing. In addition, I am authorised to give my permission for similar uses of the emblem that indicate authorisation by or connection with the House.
It is important for the dignity of the House that the emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded or represented as having the authority of the House.
All Members of the House have a duty to ensure that the emblem is not misused. For my part, I intend to use my authority to give permission for its use only sparingly. I am aware that the emblem is currently in use by the media in a number of contexts concerned with coverage of our affairs. Such use makes a serious contribution to public understanding of Parliament, and I therefore regard it as appropriate that the House emblem should be used in those contexts. New uses will, however, require my authorisation, which will not be given if the use could possibly reflect adversely on the House or be misunderstood.
Finally, at this stage of the political cycle it is appropriate for me to remind Members that neither the crowned portcullis nor the royal arms, whether or not associated with the words "House of Commons", may be used to support the return of any person to public office. In case of doubt, Members should consult the Serjeant at Arms.

Points of Order

Mr. George Mudie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, my constituent Edna Harrison collapsed in the snow a few hundred yards from St. James's hospital, the largest teaching hospital in western Europe. She could not be found an intensive care bed. Four hours later, having suffered further brain damage, she was found a bed in Hull hospital, 60 miles away, where, sadly, she died. Last year, following a similar occurrence, the Secretary of State for Health made a statement to the House promising fresh resources and new procedures to deal with the acute shortage of intensive care beds. As that does not appear to be working, has the Secretary of State sought to make a statement on the crisis affecting intensive care beds? If he has not sought to do so voluntarily, how can we induce him to come to the House and explain the current alarming state of affairs?

Madam Speaker: The Secretary of State certainly has not informed me that he is seeking to make a statement on the issue. The hon. Gentleman might care to look at the Order Paper, so that the next time the Department replies to questions he might get some answers to the questions that he is attempting to raise today.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may have been informed that the stock exchange surveillance department and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising are investigating movements in the shares of the Go Ahead Group, which rose 40 per cent. in seven weeks during the company's franchise bid for north-east Regional Railways. One would have thought that Ministers would have volunteered a statement to the House as the matter raises immense issues of public concern-notably revenues from privatisation and speculative share dealings. Could you carry out inquiries and find out whether Ministers intend to make a statement to Parliament as I and many of my hon. Friends believe that there should be a full statement so that we can question Ministers on the issue?

Madam Speaker: Ministers always inform me, at the latest by midday, when they are seeking to make a statement at 3.30 pm. However, there are opportunities later in the day for statements to be made.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware that a suggestion has been made—not from Conservative Benches—that there should be a windfall tax on private utilities. I understand that it has been suggested in the national press over the weekend that if legislation were passed through the House to introduce such a windfall tax, that tax could be deemed illegal by European institutions. It would be helpful to the House, Madam Speaker, if you could look into the matter. Is it right and


proper and appropriate that the House should pass a tax that could then be ruled out of order by courts and institutions outside this country?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he is not raising a point of order but describing a hypothetical situation and I shall have nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). In Sunderland over the new year, a 20-month-old baby who desperately needed an intensive care bed had to be taken 120 miles to Edinburgh for the nearest available paediatric intensive care bed, there being none available in the northern region. When I checked again last week, that remained the position. Do you have any influence with the Secretary of State for Health as the House ought to hear from him on an issue that concerns many hon. Members of all political persuasions?

Madam Speaker: I am not certain what my influence is with any Minister, but if I were a Back Bencher in those circumstances I would be knocking on the Minister's door without delay.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that the only line of accountability in the national health service is that of the Secretary of State to the House, bearing it in mind that we have the most serious crisis in the national health service for many years? My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) mentioned a case in Leeds and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) referred to another case in the north-east. Pinderfields hospital in my constituency is facing its worst crisis for many years. Bearing in mind the fact that the chief executives of those hospital trusts and the Minister for Health have been commenting publicly, what help can you give us, Madam Speaker, to ensure that the Secretary of State accepts his accountability to the House and comes here today to deal with our constituents' serious concerns?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and the House certainly know, I have no authority to demand that the Secretary of State or any other Minister with responsibility for a portfolio comes to the Dispatch Box to make a statement. Leading Ministers are on the Treasury Bench, and they have heard those points of order. It will be some time before questions to Ministers at the Department of Health can be tabled, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will table some questions at that time.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to those points of order, Madam Speaker. I find it very strange that the Secretary of State for Health cannot be in the Chamber to reply to the points of order that have been raised with you, Madam Speaker. There is no more pairing—all that is finished—and he has no excuse not to be here. He should be here, because the public are demanding a statement. I rather suspect that he is not here because he would be embarrassed, as Glenfield general hospital, the

heart hospital in his constituency, made the decision over the weekend not to accept any more patients who are suffering from heart problems. It is a scandal that the Secretary of State cannot present himself to answer questions which our constituents demand that he answer.

Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order but a matter of opinion.I hope that the remaining matters are points of order that I can deal with.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the matter of the conduct of Ministers at the Department of Health, may I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, on a sequence of unhappy events? In the middle of November, forums of general practitioners in three boroughs in east London and the local medical committee sent a letter to the Secretary of State, which was not replied to in an Adjournment debate on 18 December 1996, the last sitting of the House before Christmas. During that debate, the Minister assured me that he would provide some explanation for the lack of a reply to the letter and reply in full. So far I have received no reply to the letter, although I believe that another hon. Member may have done so.
May I seek your advice, Madam Speaker? I intend to refer the matter to the Public Service Select Committee, which I believe has a remit in the matter. Is there anything else that you would advise me to do in these serious and difficult circumstances?

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will let me have the correspondence, I will see what I can do with it. He is perfectly correct in referring the matter to that Select Committee, but I should also like to have the correspondence.

Mr. John Gunnell: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). The Secretary of State for Health appeared in the House twice last year—the second occasion was in March last year—to make statements on intensive care beds, but neither of the promises that he made in those statements has been realised. Because of the current crisis, which has been highlighted by the British Medical Association, do you not think that it is appropriate, Madam Speaker, that the Secretary of State should come to the House to explain what is happening in intensive care and with the many hundreds of operations that are being postponed because beds are required for emergencies?

Madam Speaker: As I said earlier, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the concerns expressed by Opposition Members, and no doubt they will report those concerns in the appropriate quarter.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I seek your advice, Madam Speaker, on a very specific point. Last week, it was revealed that the Go Ahead Group—one of the bidders for Regional Railways' north-east franchise—was privy to inside information from British Rail, in breach of the franchising rules, which gave it an advantage in the bidding process. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the surge in its share price may well be related to the possession of


that inside information and the commercial advantage that it gave the company. As the Government intend to announce their preferred bidder for the franchise very soon—possibly later this week—it is essential, before any such announcement, that the Minister makes a statement to the House and that the Government assure us that the franchise will not be granted until the investigation is completed by the stock exchange.

Madam Speaker: That is not really a point of order for me, but I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of what has been said today, may I bring to your attention the report on the front page of the Evening Standard about the death of an elderly woman at Guy's hospital arising from the fact that her heart operation was postponed three times? Considering all that has gone on since the House went into recess, is it not essential that the Secretary of State for Health comes to the House at some stage today to explain what is happening? Are not Ministers accountable to the House?
You advised one of my hon. Friends, Madam Speaker, to table a question—presumably an oral question—for the next time when the Secretary of State for Health and his colleagues are due to answer. That could be some time away. Given the urgency of the issue and the fact that people are dying because of failures in the health service and the failure of the Government to protect the NHS, the Secretary of State should make a statement today, or at least on Tuesday. Is there any way in which we can persuade the Secretary of State to come to the House and make such a statement?

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does it refer to the same matter?

Mr. Shaw: No.

Madam Speaker: As I explained earlier, I have no authority or influence over the Secretary of State, but what has been said today will no doubt be related to him without delay and perhaps there may be a statement forthcoming later today or tomorrow on these issues, which are of obvious concern to a number of hon. Members.

Mr. Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, shortly before Christmas, there was a small problem that, on the face of it, had nothing to do with the House: a unit outside the Palace of Westminster—known as the audience participation unit—endeavoured to fiddle a BBC poll. In view of the way in which points of order have been raised today, is there not substantial evidence that the audience participation unit is active within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster?

Madam Speaker: That is a very good try. I can see that we are in for a very happy and joyous new year.

Orders of the Day — Crime (Sentences) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

EXTENDED PERIODS OF SUPERVISION FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS SENTENCED TO FOUR YEARS OR MORE

'.— (1) Subsection (2) below applies where—

(a) there is released under this Chapter an offender who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter; and
(b) the court by which he was so sentenced gave a direction under subsection (3) below.

(2) Section 13 above shall have effect in relation to the offender as if for subsection (2) there were substituted the following subsection—
"(2) On his release, the offender shall be subject to a release supervision order—

(a) where he is released otherwise than under section 8 above, for such period as is specified in the direction under section (extended periods of supervision for violent offenders sentenced to four years or more) (3) below;
(b) where he is released under section 8 above, for a period equal to the aggregate of—

(i) the period mentioned in paragraph (a) above; and
(ii) a period equal to so much of the remainder of his term as he would have served but for his release under section 8 above;

and in applying paragraph (b) above account shall be taken of any early release or additional days awarded to the offender before his release."

(3) Where a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter, it shall give a direction under this subsection unless it is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so.
(4) Where the court does not give a direction under subsection (3) above, it shall state in open court that it is of that opinion and what the exceptional circumstances are.
(5) A direction under subsection (3) above shall direct that the offender's release supervision period shall be such period as is specified in the direction.
(6) The period so specified shall be—

(a) a period equal to 50 per cent. of the offender's term of imprisonment (rounded up to the nearest whole day) or a period of 12 months, whichever is the longer; or
(b) if the court considers a longer period necessary for the purpose of preventing the commission by the offender of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation, such longer period, not exceeding 10 years, as it may determine.'. —[Mr. Michael.]


Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause addresses one of the great scandals of our time—the failure of the criminal justice system to deal with violent behaviour in British society. We all know that there is no magic solution. It is not just the criminal justice system that is failing. We shall deal later with issues relating to the treatment of offenders with psychiatric and mental health problems.
The basic failures of the criminal justice system, which we have highlighted in previous debates on the Bill, were laid bare during the Christmas recess by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary. In figures published during the holiday, he showed that fewer violent offenders are convicted or cautioned now than in 1980, despite the doubling of the number of recorded violent crimes.
The police force area figures complied by the House of Commons Library from Home Office statistics show convincingly that violent criminals are almost three times more likely to get away with their crimes than was the case when the Conservative party took office. Between 1980 and 1995, the number of recorded violent offences went up by 137 per cent., from 133,359 to 316,332—a dramatic rise—while the number of convictions and cautions dropped by almost 15 per cent., from 71,924 to 61,398. The number of people found guilty in magistrates and Crown courts has fallen by more than 39 per cent.
Since 1992 alone, recorded violent crime has risen by 11 per cent., while the number convicted or cautioned has dropped by a quarter. The 19 per cent. drop in cautions since 1992 has not been reflected in a corresponding increase in convictions. Indeed, in the magistrates courts, 39 per cent. fewer people were found guilty in 1995 than in 1992.
Those are shocking figures, which show a widening gap between the number of violent crimes and the number of violent criminals being brought to justice for those crimes.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The number of criminals who are brought to justice obviously has an impact on deterrence and therefore violent crime. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would also deter violent crime, and if not, why not?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to a word that I said and simply came out with his soundbite in order to contribute to debate, not thought. I highlighted the fact that the number of violent offences has increased massively under the Conservatives, while the number going before the courts to be punished has fallen. If offenders are not brought before the courts, there can hardly be any deterrence. The hon. Gentleman obviously wants there to be punishment without even the bother of a conviction. The issues are more serious than his question implies and I am not going to allow the debate about violent offenders and the problem that we face in our society to be so trivialised.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been totally misrepresented by the hon. Gentleman, who has not even sought to address himself to my question.

Madam Speaker: That is a point for argument and debate, not a point of order.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman's point was neither a point of order nor a sensible contribution to the debate.
On the basis of the very serious figures to which I have referred—I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) wants to divert

attention from Conservative failure on such issues—Labour has made several suggestions about how to tackle violent crime. The new clause is not a panacea, but the crude facts that I have cited—the massive rise in violent offences by 137 per cent. and the drop in the number found guilty in magistrates courts and Crown courts by more than 39 per cent. —illustrate how important it is to do everything we can to deal with the problems of violent crime. As I said, Labour would like to do many other things too, but they would take us very far wide of the scope of the Bill and the new clause.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: I want to focus attention specifically on the new clause. I shall be glad to give way to the hon. Lady, if she can contain herself for a moment. I hope that her intervention will concern the subject matter of the new clause: the extension of supervision of offenders who have committed violent offences after their release from prison.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I appreciate that the new clause concerns that, but the hon. Gentleman raised the question of the failure to secure convictions. Does he agree that the abolition of the so-called right to silence assists the courts in securing convictions?

Mr. Michael: I knew that the intervention would have nothing to do with the debate. The matters that the hon. Lady is trying to raise were addressed by Opposition Members in 1994 during constructive debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act and when we moved the proposals that were put forward by the royal commission, which the Government established to give them advice that they then ignored.

Mr. George Howarth: It is the pantomime season.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend suggests that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) wants to participate in the pantomime season. I want to get away from such lighthearted contributions and address the serious topic of this debate.
The public have been scandalised by the evidence provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, which is based on police and Home Office statistics and reveals a massive increase in violent crime and a reduction in the number of those taken before the courts, found guilty and punished. Reoffending after being punished and sentenced, with which the new clause deals, is a serious problem.
The new clause gives the court the power to specify a longer period of supervision for offenders who have been found guilty of violent offences, so that they can be supervised after their release from prison for
a period equal to 50 per cent. of the offender's term of imprisonment".
Indeed, the new clause allows for a longer period where the court believes that it is
necessary for the purpose of preventing the commission by the offender of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation".


That will pick up on the punishment given by the courts and will be as well as that punishment and not instead of it. It is important for Parliament to legislate for supervision and rehabilitation of offenders so that when they come out they are less likely to offend, rather than more likely to offend. We argue that the new clause is necessary for the protection of potential future victims.
The new clause is about protecting the public from violence. It would provide that a system of extended post-release supervision, similar to that which clause 17 will provide for sex offenders, should also apply to the most serious violent offenders—those serving sentences of four years or more. We are talking about not minor violent offences, but serious ones. Home Office research into the parole system has shown that parole supervision produces markedly lower reconviction rates than would otherwise have been expected from parolees' records and characteristics. There is also a substantial reduction in the gravity of offences as well as the rate of reoffending.
I refer to Home Office research study No. 94 from 1987, "The Validity of the Reconviction Prediction Score", which showed that the reoffending rate of those on parole was markedly lower than would otherwise have been predicted from the characteristics of parolees based on an assessment of 16 factors that research has shown are related to the likelihood of reconviction. In other words, even when the fact that parolees were better bets than non-parolees had been fully allowed for, parole supervision still substantially reduced their reoffending rates. I underline that fact because the Minister of State said in Committee:
I do not take seriously Home Office research that works on prediction rates. Any research that works on what a person might be predicted to do compared with what they have previously done is very flawed … one cannot rely on prediction rates of what some sociologist thinks offenders should have done when they were released."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 November 1996; c. 208–9.]
It is astonishing that painstaking and rigorous Home Office research, using objective factors that previous research has found to be linked to the rate of offending, should be dismissed by a Home Office Minister as simply what some sociologist thinks. That is even more astonishing given that statistical risk prediction scores worked out by Home Office researchers—and I am quoting a Home Office Minister's remarks—are currently in use by the Parole Board and that the Home Secretary's directions to the board require it to take into account any available statistical indicators as to the likelihood of reoffending. There does not seem much point in the Minister saying that he does not believe in predictions when the Home Secretary requires the responsible Home Office body to use the available statistical indicators.
The Minister developed his view further on 10 December when he said:
All the available research applies to offenders sentenced before the 1991 Act came into force. In those days, those refused parole received no post-release supervision. There was no proper control group, therefore, against which to measure the success of parole.
That was precisely why the research did not use the control group method and instead compared the actual rate of reoffending with the rate that known predictors of reoffending showed would otherwise have been likely from those granted parole.
The Minister appeared to realise the need to shift his ground and acknowledge that post-release supervision can reduce offending when he said:
There is no evidence whatsoever that parole, rather than well-targeted and effective supervision, leads of itself to a reduction in offending.
If it is acknowledged that supervision can reduce reoffending, that is a powerful argument for the new clause, which would not retain the parole system but would extend periods of post-release supervision for serious violent offenders. In other words, on the basis of the Minister's remarks, he should support the new clause.
When resisting our arguments in Committee, the Minister argued that some violent offenders would be subject to automatic life sentences under clause 1. He said:
Of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, we estimate that 120 would have been eligible for an automatic life sentence had the Bill been then in force.
However, 120 out of 1,900 is just 6 per cent. of the offenders concerned. What about the other 94 per cent.? The Minister argued that they would receive long prison sentences and, in consequence,
would be subject to lengthy supervision on release." —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 341–42.]
Let us examine the length of those supervision periods. The extent to which the Bill will affect post-release supervision periods for offenders depends on the results of the Minister's agreement in Committee to consider increasing post-release supervision from a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of the sentence to 25 per cent.— a matter to which we will return later on Report.
4 pm
If the Bill is passed, the change in post-release supervision for any prisoner will depend also on whether he would have been granted parole. The Bill proposes that those who are released on parole would receive substantially shorter periods of post-release supervision than has been the case in the past. For example, a prisoner who is sentenced to six years and is granted parole at the first review is currently released after three years and supervised for 18 months, followed by an 18-month at-risk period. Under the Bill's proposals, he would be sentenced to four years and, on release, would be supervised for seven months with no at-risk period. If the Government agree to increase the supervision period to 25 per cent. of the sentence, the same offender would be supervised for a year with no at-risk period, compared with the current 18 months of supervision plus an 18-month at-risk period. If one believes that supervision is effective—as the Minister has argued—it must be clear that the situation will be worse in this respect after the enactment of the Bill.
The Government have pointed out correctly that a long-term prisoner who does not currently get parole would receive a longer period of supervision under the proposals. However, the amount of extra supervision in these cases will be minimal. For example, an offender who is sentenced to six years' imprisonment and who does not get parole is currently released after four years and supervised for six months, followed by an at-risk period of one and a half years. Under the Bill's proposals, he would—in accordance with clause 22—be sentenced to four years' imprisonment. On release, he would be under


supervision for a period equivalent to 15 per cent. of that sentence—namely, seven months. That compares with the current six months of supervision, and there would be no subsequent at-risk period.
If the Government increase post-release supervision periods to 25 per cent. of the sentence length—as we suggest—the same offender would be supervised on release for a year, and that would be a considerable improvement. Even then, any increases in supervision for those who do not currently get parole would have to be set against the reductions in supervision periods for the majority of released prisoners. I am sorry to have to go into some detail but it is a detailed point, the result of which is an unsatisfactory level of supervision for those who have committed serious violent offences. That is the nub of my argument.
Clause 17, to which I have referred, provides that in the case of sexual offenders, courts shall order—unless there are "exceptional circumstances"—periods of post-release supervision equivalent to 50 per cent. of the term of imprisonment or 12 months, whichever is the longer. That is a parallel provision. If the court considers a longer period of supervision necessary—under conditions similar to those contained in new clause 1—it may order post-release supervision for any period up to a maximum of 10 years. But the clause applies only to those who are convicted of sexual offences, and not to those convicted of purely violent offences—although, obviously, the sexual offences referred to are in themselves violent incidents.
The case for extending supervision of sex offenders was clearly set out by the Government in their consultation document "Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders" in June last year. In our view, the same arguments apply to offenders convicted of serious violence. The document said clearly that
as the length of post-release supervision for the majority of sex offenders is at present directly proportional to the length of the time spent in custody, the time on licence may also prove too short for effective work to be undertaken. The longer the period of supervision on release from custody, the greater the opportunity for the probation service to continue to work with the offender to address his offending behaviour, to assess the risk he poses to the community and to take steps to minimise that risk by arranging further treatment or helping the offender to avoid a relapse.
Those are the Government's logical arguments relating to sex offenders; they apply with equal force in the case of serious violent offenders. For identical reasons, extended post-release supervision of those convicted of serious violent offences is crucial if the public are to be protected effectively from such offenders.
If the Government do not accept the case for 25 per cent. as opposed to 15 per cent. —I hope that the Minister will tell us about that—the need for such extended supervision will be even more essential, because of the extremely large reduction in post-release supervision periods for many offenders which would be the result of the Bill as it stands. Even if the Government accept that 25 per cent. should be the norm—an amendment has been tabled to that effect—the arguments for extended supervision for serious violent offenders are as valid as for sex offenders.
In Committee, the Minister said:
It has long been recognised that sex offenders are considered to be different from other offenders, including violent offenders. It was on that premise that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided for a

longer period of supervision for sex offenders. I do not want radically to depart from the signal that we are sending that sex offenders are a case apart. They need special treatment and the public need special defences from them … Sex offenders tend to continue offending for much of their lives. That is a crucial point. Sex offenders get worse the older they get. Generally, violent offenders stop offending at an earlier age.
He also said:
We all know that sex offences are particularly damaging to victims. That is why we treat them as a special case … Quite apart from the other reasons that I have given, I should be worried that the new clause might appear to devalue the currency."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 342–43.]
I accept that sex offenders are different and need different treatment, but I do not accept that it would devalue the currency if we also tried to protect the public by increasing supervision for serious violent offenders. Sexual offences and offences of violence can both not merely damage but destroy the victim's life; a whole life can be destroyed, even if the individual survives the attack. The case for extending supervision for sex offenders is widely accepted, and the impact of violent offences can also be especially damaging to victims. I hope that the Minister will accept that general point.
A Home Office research study in 1994 showed that 47 per cent. of violent offenders were reconvicted within two years, compared with 25 per cent. of sex offenders. That suggests that there is a greater likelihood of violent offenders reoffending. Comparisons are difficult because of the different nature of the offences, but that serious point should be taken on board.
No one familiar with patterns of sexual offending would be deceived by the relatively low reconviction rate, because the sex offences that remain undetected for various reasons cannot result in a conviction, but the rate of reoffending by violent offenders underlines the case for taking steps to reduce further offending on release.
The argument of the Home Office consultation document on sex offenders, that longer periods of supervision give the probation service a greater opportunity
to continue to work with the offender to address his offending behaviour, to assess the risk he poses to the community and to take steps to minimise that risk",
applies equally to violent offenders. To talk of devaluing the currency and departing from the signal that sex offenders are a case apart does not constitute a convincing counter-argument.
I underline strongly the fact that the court will use the power only when it feels that it is appropriate and that an extended period of supervision for a violent offender would have an impact and be desirable for the protection of the public. It is surely unlikely that the public will view sexual offending as less serious simply because Parliament has decided that they also need protection from serious violent offenders.
Violence is a scourge of modern British society. There is a lack of public confidence in the criminal justice system and in Parliament. The figures published by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary show that that lack of confidence is based on fact and on problems with the present system. The new clause would not solve all the problems but it would improve supervision for serious offenders and increase the likelihood that the criminal justice system will succeed in reducing the number of prisoners who reoffend after release.

Mr. Clive Soley: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) made a good case for new clause 1. He was right to focus on prevention. As the Home Office research shows, good supervision can prevent further violent offences. I sometimes get frustrated when the Government talk about getting tough with crime when they mean that they are shouting, but doing nothing. The Government have done little to prevent crime effectively. Sadly, they have allowed us to accept more easily than we should ever have done violent crime, and the threat of it, in the community. Violent crime is different from property crime. That does not mean that property crime should be tolerated, but it means that violent crime and the threat of violence pose a different problem to people, both in the street and in their homes. We should do everything possible to prevent it.
My hon. Friend pointed out that good supervision after an initial offence can be preventive. First, it reminds offenders that the court and prison system through which they have been is still there should they reoffend. If the Government want to talk about prevention and deterrence, that point is important, because it is an effective reminder to offenders and a better form of deterrence than saying, "We will lock you up if you commit a violent crime." Many violent offenders do not commit their crimes with premeditation. They do not work out in advance what their sentences will be.
Many people who use or threaten violence do not want to be like that for the rest of their lives. Often, they would like to be able to control the violence that drives them from within, but cannot. That is the second reason why supervision after a sentence, whatever it may be, can be beneficial: offenders can gain better insight into their behaviour and it gives them someone to turn to when things start to get out of control. Much of their violence is directed against people they know, including family and friends. When the pressure is increasing, either in their families or in their lives, it is beneficial to have someone to turn to for supervision.
I want to take my point further. As I said earlier, we have come to be a little too tolerant of violence in our society. The Government can be absolved of some of the causes of the rise of violence. Drug and alcohol abuse will always be major causes of crime, not least violent crime. While we could do more than we are doing, I accept that there is a limit to what a Government can do about those problems. We cannot blame the Government for the behaviour of every drug addict, but we can recognise that there is a problem.
I have a specific point for the Minister that also touches on the next group of new clauses. It is rather odd that we should spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a full inquiry when someone who is mentally ill commits a murder, but do no such thing when a conventional murder is committed by someone who is not mentally ill. It is odd, because we assume that we can learn something from an inquiry that will help prevent murders by mentally ill people, but that we cannot do so in cases involving people who are not mentally ill. That does not make sense. There is a strong case for a more effective audit of the causes that underlie extreme cases of violence.
The Home Office is lucky in having one of the best research departments in the western world. One would not think so, from what the Government say at times to try to conceal the research. They hush it up in an attempt to

keep it away from public view, not least because much of the department's research goes against the general drift of the Government's philosophy on crime and law and order, but it is a good research department. If we are to talk effectively about prevention, it would be useful for all of us to know the background of violent offenders.
4.15 pm
We know that alcohol and drug abuse are major causes of violence, but the other cause that receives far too little attention in society is family problems, particularly treatment of children in the early stages of their life. We know that children who are violently treated by their parents are more likely to use violence as adults. That is one reason why I always find it bizarre that Conservative Members call for more corporal punishment, more thrashings at home or whatever. So far, the only evidence that we have shows that such treatment of a young person is more likely to increase that person's use of violence as an adult. It is one reason why we should always consider cautiously the introduction of corporal punishment or encouraging parents to hit their children. Perhaps the most disturbed individuals are those who are beaten inconsistently and harshly by one parent, while the other parent turns a blind eye or pretends to love that child, often producing what we like to call the psychopathic personality.
If we could do a little more research on that, we might achieve some prevention. It is one reason why, in considering the wider causes of crime, we should examine things such as nursery provision and truancy in schools, which would enable us to spot the child who is getting into difficulties early on.
Good supervision prevents some further criminal offences, particularly violent offences. It enables a probation officer or some other suitably qualified person to spot problems as they emerge, to offer help and to recall the person to prison if he is on parole, which must be done from time to time, to prevent an offence taking place, so the new clause is wholly appropriate. I urge the Government, however, to go a step further, and to consider the bizarre system whereby we have a full inquiry every time someone who is mentally ill commits murder. Instead of continuing with that process, the Government should consider allowing the Home Office research department to do an audit of serious violent offences, including murder, so that we can be a bit more sophisticated in spotting those problems in advance and in measuring the effectiveness of the supervision that the new clause entails.
I recommend the new clause to the House. It is a small step in the right direction and it might show people that we are trying to prevent violence, rather than just expressing outrage after the event, when the victim's life has been devastated.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The new clause seeks to increase the period of post-release supervision for all violent offenders sentenced to four years or more. It would mean that, following their release from prison, all such offenders would be supervised for a period equivalent to 50 per cent. of their sentence. The court could increase that period by up to 10 years where it considered a longer period to be necessary. In broad terms, the new clause's


effect would be to extend the provisions for the post-release supervision of sexual offenders, as set out in clause 17, to certain violent offenders.
I do not need any persuading that the law should provide greater protection for the public from the most serious violent offenders—indeed, that is the Bill's key objective—but I am not convinced that there is a case for extended periods of post-release supervision for a particular group of violent offenders, as the new clause proposes. The public are better protected by a long prison sentence, not by supervision by a probation officer in the community. That is why we have included in clause 1 provision for an automatic life sentence for people who are convicted for a second time of a serious sexual or violent offence. That is why we want to ensure that prisoners serve their full term and are not released after serving as little as 50 per cent. of their sentence.

Mr. Soley: What about the first time?

Mr. Maclean: I hear the hon. Gentleman's comment from a sedentary position. I remind him that for rape, serious violent offences and murder, the court can impose a life sentence on the first occasion if it wishes to do so. In the Bill, we insist merely on an important protection for the public: there will be an automatic life sentence for a second conviction.

Mr. Soley: The sort of offence to which the Minister should direct his attention is that of a man who stabs his wife during a matrimonial dispute and although the stabbing is, by its very nature, serious, it is not immediately life threatening. He receives a fairly long sentence—probably quite a few years—and comes out on parole. There are many such cases, and I could quote chapter and verse, if the Minister wants.
Currently, the period of parole can be very short. During that period, the man can be recalled to prison if it is thought that the marriage is again becoming troubled and he is likely to be violent, but nothing can be done from the day that the parole order ends, which is usually fairly soon after the offender's release from prison.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has failed to read the Bill and has not realised that, although parole in the conventional sense will be ended, we are creating a new supervision period during which conditions can be applied. If any of those conditions are breached, an offence will have been committed and the individual can be sentenced for that breach. After careful consideration of the matter, I have decided to go for a minimum period of supervision of 25 per cent. of the sentence. In the more minor cases, that will exactly equate to the present level.
Under the present system, those who have been sentenced, who have behaved well in prison and obeyed the rules and who are eligible for parole can be released early. The period that they will spend under supervision or on licence is 25 per cent. of their sentence. The really bad guys, who have misbehaved in prison and are not eligible for parole, have to be released automatically at the two-thirds point, so they currently receive supervision for a period of only 9 per cent. of their sentence.
In our original proposals, we considered a blanket 15 per cent.I shall say this again at the proper point in my speech, but it might help the debate if I say now that

I am happy to opt for a supervision period of 25 per cent. of the sentence for all, which will ensure that those in the lesser category—those who have behaved themselves in prison—will get no less supervision than they currently receive and that badly behaved prisoners will be subject to a greatly increased period of supervision.
The main method whereby the Bill protects the public is not by insisting that a newly released prisoner should have a few more contacts with the probation officer, but through automatic life sentences for second-time serious violent and sexual offenders, including those who kill, seven years for those who deal in drugs and three years for persistent burglars. That is how to protect the public. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and his colleagues appear to be less convinced by that approach: they want longer periods of supervision for some violent offenders on release from prison, but their proposals for amending clauses 1 and 22 would lead to shorter periods in prison for certain offenders, including some of those convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sexual offence.
I shall not stray into a forthcoming debate, but it is relevant now to point out that, although Labour Members call for extended supervision of violent offenders, examination of amendment No. 1 reveals that they want to water down our proposals for automatic life sentences for those convicted of a second serious wounding. It appears that they would rather violent criminals, such as those who knife others, spent less time in prison and more time out in the community, albeit under supervision. That would not give the public the protection that they deserve.
Of course, a period of supervision after release from prison is valuable for any offender who has spent a significant length of time in prison.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does the Minister accept that it important to do both: to impose a longer term of imprisonment and a longer term of supervision on the outside, as we advocate?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should read Opposition amendment No. 1, which is to be debated later. To quote the words of the Lord Chief Justice, if that amendment was successful, its effect would be that a judge would
avoid passing a mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so!
It would drive a coach and horses through the main provisions of the Bill, in clauses 1, 2 and 3. The hon. Gentleman is not right, therefore, to insist that the Opposition proposals would result in longer terms of imprisonment and longer supervision. They would result in longer supervision if the proposal that we are discussing became law, but if the remaining Labour amendments were passed, there would be many fewer seriously violent offenders in prison, because the Opposition proposals would drastically widen the exceptional circumstances part of the Bill.
I accept that I said that a period of supervision after release from prison can be valuable, especially if the person has spent a long time inside. We have provided for that in the Bill. As I told the House, I am minded to accept amendment No. 2, which suggests that the supervision period should be 25 per cent. of the term of imprisonment, not 15 per cent.
However, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth proposes longer supervision periods for violent offenders who receive the longest sentences, who already have the longest supervision periods. Some of those people will be eligible for the automatic life sentence under clause 1 and will be supervised for life. We estimate that, of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, 120 would have been eligible for the automatic life sentence.
Those who are not eligible will nevertheless receive a long prison sentence, during which time they should have access to treatment programmes to tackle their offending behaviour. I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that if people are in prison for offences of violence, and if they have behavioural problems—I believe that the euphemism is "anger management problems"—those should be tackled. The best place to do so is in prison, where the person is under supervision 24 hours a day, not outside, where, as the Opposition proposals envisage, the person would be eligible for supervision of merely one visit to the probation officer every two months.
Programmes to tackle offending behaviour are important, and the Prison Service is keen to develop proposals and increase the work that is up and running. It is developing a treatment programme specifically aimed at violent offenders. It will be piloted in about six establishments during the current financial year, with the aim of accreditation before the end of 1997. A lengthy period of supervision following prisoners' release will allow for further action to build on the work begun in prison.
Unlike the present provisions on release, length of supervision will be commensurate with the length of the sentence. I understand that the present provisions mean that those who do not receive parole because they are judged to be at most risk receive less supervision than those who are paroled early.
Under the Bill's proposals, an offender who receives a four-year sentence will serve between three years and four months and four years and, on release, will be supervised for slightly more than seven months if the period equals 15 per cent. of the term of imprisonment, or 12 months if we increase the figure to 25 per cent. That is a significant supervision period. According to the minimum standards for supervision following release from custody, that would mean a minimum of 19 contacts between offender and probation officer. Of those 19 contacts, the first 10 would occur in the first three months, and that will not change under our proposals and under new clause 1.
That intensity of supervision in the first three months is in recognition of the fact that, if we are to have any success in heading off people from reoffending when they are released from prison, the key period is the first few months after release, when they have the problems of resettlement and reintegration into the community. That is when they are at the biggest risk of going astray—of returning to a life of crime. That is why all our efforts in supervising criminals when they are released concentrate on maximising our resources to get at them in the period immediately following release. It is important to do it then—not two, three, four or five years later.
Under our proposals, the person sentenced to three years and four months would have a minimum of 19 contacts with the probation officer, 10 of which would

be in the first three months. If we increased that level of supervision to 50 per cent., it would not double the contacts, because the bulk of them happen early in the sentence. It would increase the contacts to 31 over the period, as opposed to 19.
I stress that supervision is most important when an offender is first released from prison. That is why the arrangements in the Bill for most offenders are the most cost-effective way of protecting the public from possible reoffending by a prisoner on release. New clause 1 would increase the period of supervision further by applying our special conditions for sex offenders. However, sex offenders are a special case, and the whole House had always recognised that fact—until our debate in Committee and today.
4.30 pm
Clause 17 proposes extended supervision powers, having regard to the special problems caused by sex offenders. In the consultation document that we published in the summer, we drew attention to the research evidence in that area. We know that men convicted for the first time of sexual offences often have a history of sexual offending that began many years earlier and which involves an escalation to more and more serious offences as they get more and more devious and clever at hiding their behaviour. The research also tells us that, once a pattern of sex offending has been established, the risk of reoffending can persist for many years and that, in most cases, the offender manipulates people and circumstances in order to set up the opportunity to offend.
Because sex offenders are in a special category of cleverness and deviousness, the provisions for extended supervision apply to all those who receive a prison sentence, not just to those who receive a relatively long prison sentence and who will, in any case, receive a substantial period of supervision on release.
It is sensible to target resources effectively, and that is what the Bill provides for: lifelong supervision for the most serious violent and sex offenders, and extended supervision for other offenders. There is a clear and specific need to provide that in the case of such offenders. For other offenders, however, supervision periods should be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and proportionate to the prison sentence imposed.
We also know that the general trend is that the majority of young men committing violent offences tend to grow out of it in later life. As teenagers reach their 20s and 30s, the number committing violent offences decreases substantially.

Mr. John Morris: indicated assent.

Mr. Maclean: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is nodding and agrees with me.
Thus the trend in the behaviour of violent offenders is exactly the reverse of that of sexual offenders. As young men who may be violent get older, their offending decreases; as sexual offenders get older, their sexual offending increases and becomes cleverer, more devious and more manipulative. That is why we need special arrangements for the supervision of sex offenders and why we need to keep it distinct from the supervision that we propose for other offenders.
If supervision in the community is to mean anything, what matters is its quality rather than its quantity. There is no point in continuing it indefinitely, whether it is doing any good or not. I want the best possible supervision in the community when people are released from prison. That is why we must concentrate on clearly defined categories of offenders, and why we must concentrate our resources and target prisoners in the initial period following their release when they are most at risk of reoffending. The new clause fails to do that. For the reasons that I have given, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Tipping: I have listened to the Minister's interesting comments, many of which he made in Committee. They are characteristic of the argument that we have had throughout debates on the Bill. The Minister argues strongly that prison works because of its deterrent effect but, in so doing, he demeans the benefit of supervision in the community. He asked what was the value of a few more contacts with the prisoner's probation officer, then went on to ask what was the value of one visit to the probation service every two months.
One of the interesting aspects of the Bill is the Government's commitment to put significant extra resources into the Prison Service—perhaps as much as £140 million—yet they argue that the probation service needs no extra resources. The explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill states that the Bill is cost neutral to the probation service.
The Minister argued that the Bill was about putting resources where they are needed. He has argued strongly that prison works. That argument implies that there is little need for community service and extended supervision after prison. I shall argue that both are needed.
It is vital that prison should be a positive experience. I was delighted to hear the Minister's comments about the new treatment centres to tackle violent offending. I am worried that the Prison Service will not be able to accomplish that. I am anxious about the number of people going into prison, and the pressure on prison governors and officers.
It is important, as the Minister rightly said, that when a prisoner is incarcerated for 24 hours a day, that time is put to constructive use, but the pressures on the Prison Service may militate against that. I have listened with great care to what prison governors have been saying recently. I am concerned that the value of prison for treatment, as opposed to deterrence, is not maximised.
Violent crime creates severe anxiety. People may be more troubled by the fear of crime than by the reality of crime. I know that, in Nottinghamshire, many people, especially women and elderly people, are extremely concerned. They lock themselves in their houses because they are worried to death about violent crime. Their fear is disproportionate to the risk. We must acknowledge that fear and respond, first, with severe prison sentences. I support the Minister in that respect. Secondly, we should not devalue the probation service.
The Minister and some of his colleagues have a history of running down the morale of professional groups and putting the blame for the problem on them. We must recognise the strength and value of the probation service, which would improve if it were properly resourced. It

could be argued that some of the money that, under the Bill, is to be voted to the Prison Service should be diverted to the probation service.
There is a strong argument for examining the work of the Home Office research department. During discussion of the Bill, several Home Office research unit publications have been highlighted. I shall mention two: study paper No. 94, entitled "The Validity of the Reconviction Prediction Score", and a later paper, No. 136, entitled "Explaining reconviction rates: a critical analysis". The Minister has misrepresented both. I read them during my vacation and they acknowledge the value of supervision following release from prison. The Minister said that prison works. I draw his attention to Home Office study paper No. 136 and to a key point on page 7, which states:
there was no firm indication that community penalties outperformed custody or vice versa in preventing offending.
The Minister acknowledged the need to focus resources and to involve the probation service soon after a prisoner's release. I agree: the first three months after release are vital. However, people may face life crises following release from prison and continue to experience problems far beyond three months. I believe that we should proceed carefully in this area. We must acknowledge the importance of prison and the need for positive treatment and the reinforcement of good behaviour in prison. We must also use the probation service, both in prison—it is important to acknowledge that probation officers are losing their role in prison—and outside it.
I argue for long prison sentences and for extended periods of supervision outside prison. I know the real fears of women and of the elderly throughout the country about violent crime. We have a responsibility to acknowledge those fears and to allocate resources where they are needed. I argue that those resources are needed not only in prison, but to support the probation service. People such as the Minister must build morale in the probation service, but I am afraid that some of his comments today demeaned the service—which is in no one's best interests. We must fight crime together: we must all support the campaign if we are to win.

Mr. John Hutton: This is a useful new clause that would improve the Bill. It should, therefore, be supported by the House. I was sorry to hear the Minister caricature Opposition Members' arguments in support of it. Once again, he distorted—I am sure it was unintentional—the effect it would have.
The new clause does not state that serious violent criminals who have been sentenced to prison terms of four years or more must see a probation officer once every two months—which is what the Minister implied. That is not our intention. Furthermore, it is not fair to say that, by supporting an extension of the period of post-release supervision orders to violent criminals, Opposition Members are questioning the role of extended supervision orders for serious sexual offenders. We can have both extended periods of post-release supervision for serious violent criminals and longer periods of supervision after release for serious sexual offenders. We do not need to choose between the two forms of post-release supervision.
The Minister claimed that he would choose his words carefully, but those of us who study his comments will know that that would be out of character. Those who read


and heard his comments at the weekend about beggars from Scotland will hope that he has had time to reflect upon them. He has not done the House a service by characterising our amendments as he did earlier. This is a serious debate and the Opposition will take no lectures from the right hon. Gentleman about the need to be serious about violent crime and criminals. We want to ensure that violent criminals are out of harm's way and spend the correct period in prison where they do not present a threat to the community and innocent law-abiding citizens. That is not the issue here.
I support strongly those parts of the Bill that concern post-release supervision orders. I presented legislation, before the Government published the Bill, that advocated longer periods of post-release supervision for serious sexual offenders.I am glad that that concept is now part of the Bill. We must consider carefully our strategy for the effective containment and management of serious violent criminals, and it is difficult to determine the Minister's objection to the new clause.
4.45 pm
It is hard to argue that the public will not be better protected by more extensive periods of post-release supervision. The extended periods about which we are talking in this context would fall within the mainstream of the terms and conditions in clause 13 which specifies the details of post-release supervision orders. We are trying not to weaken the concept of post-release supervision or to minimise the impact of supervision orders, but to extend and enhance the scope and range of the orders as far as they affect serious violent criminals.

Mr. Soley: The Minister mistakenly assumes that, because most ex-offenders get into trouble within a few months of their release from prison, greatest efforts must be made in that period. We do not argue with that, but the Minister forgets that emotional patterns at home may cause some ex-offenders to become violent again. That is why we need the flexibility of long-term supervision rather than hoping that we can get it over and done with in the first three months and then go home.

Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. No two criminals or crimes are the same, so we must be as flexible as we can in developing the right solutions to the problems. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that part of the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I suspect that, when he described our new clause, the Minister attempted to comply with the Tory central office brief and the campaign documents that argue that Labour is somehow soft on crime, but no rational person could interpret it—as the Minister tried to—as representing a soft position on crime. It is not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said that, in discussing violent crime and how to deal with violent criminals, we agree that prison must play a central role. Violent criminals must spend an appropriate period in prison with 24-hour supervision. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) also made a good point: as the vast majority of ex-offenders will be released into the community, we must ensure that there is a more effective way of supervising serious violent criminals.
No one can guarantee that there will be no reoffending; we understand that point and we approach the debate from that perspective, but we are considering extending the Government's post-release supervision orders and the procedures, mechanisms, conditions and whatever else the orders contain to include serious violent criminals. I think that the Minister's response was partly an attempt to cram the new clause into his pre-packaged Tory central office brief by characterising it as another example of Labour's being soft on crime. That is not the case. The new clause represents a useful strengthening of the Bill rather than a diminution or watering down of its essential requirements, and I am surprised and saddened that the Minister will not support it.

Mr. Michael: I welcome the Minister's indication that he will accept amendment No. 2, which would bring about a general increase in the period of supervision after release from prison from 15 per cent. of the sentence to 25 per cent. He has, as he hoped, helped the debate. Indeed, the House of Commons is shown at its best when it is possible to have as sensible a debate in Committee as this one has been, and when a Minister, who has genuinely listened to the debate, has kept his promise to go away and think about the matter and come back with a positive response. I congratulate him on showing such mature judgment. Labour Members welcome that step forward.
The Minister's differentiation between those who commit sexual offences, particularly paedophiles, and those who commit offences of violence has some meaning and importance. We do not seek to suggest that the two categories should be rolled up together. There should be very different supervision and treatment in the two cases. I agree that there are differences, particularly so far as those who commit sexual offences on children are concerned. There is a great deal of evidence that they are some of the most devious of all offenders. There is evidence that some come out of prison expecting to commit further offences. The evidence shown on "The Cook Report" last year is of considerable anecdotal importance and the statistics are difficult to interpret, but I agree with the Minister that that puts the issue in a separate category of seriousness, a separate category which the criminal justice system has to be finely tuned to tackle.
Nevertheless, violent offences are also very serious. In the new clause, we are talking about people who commit a second serious violent offence. They may have committed several. One of the important points that comes from the statistics, and the facts revealed by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary over the Christmas holiday, is that so few such offences result in punishment by a court. A very small proportion result in the prison sentence to which the Minister referred. There is no difference between hon. Members on both sides of the House on the need for greater protection of the public, so I cannot understand why the Minister does not accept the new clause. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on their thoughtful contributions to the debate.
The Minister said that there is a crucial point immediately after release when things can go wrong, and that that is the period of maximum risk. I do not disagree with that, but that is not the only period of risk. Let us


consider an offender who comes out of prison, perhaps goes into temporary accommodation, and has to find permanent accommodation and a job, which may not be easy after release, to settle into a new life. A few weeks is not sufficient time in which to do everything that we can through the probation service to guarantee success in that rehabilitation. We cannot guarantee it, of course; it depends on choices by the individual as well as the quality of supervision, but it is important that the public services in which we invest, in the hope that they will reduce reoffending, are given the best possible chance of success. That is in the interest not just of the statistics of the probation service, but of those who, if the individuals reoffend, will be the victims. That is why this issue is so important.
The Minister talked about supervision after release as though it was an alternative to the effectiveness of prison sentences. The new clause does not deal with prison sentences. Nothing in it would diminish the sentence passed by the court on the offenders whom the new clause would affect. We are arguing that supervision should be given in addition. We do not seek to shorten the prison sentence. We seek to lengthen the period of supervision after release to increase the likelihood that public investment in prison will be fruitful by avoiding reoffending.
Is not an offender who has committed violent offences just the sort of case on which we should target action? If that is successful, it is likely that we can prevent not just one victim, but a number of victims, from being created by that individual's future offences—perhaps several violent offences before he is caught and brought before the courts again. I must underline the fact that violent criminals are now three times more likely to get away with it than they were in 1980, that violent offences recorded by the police went up by 137 per cent. between 1980 and 1995, and that convictions are down by 39 per cent.
Given those statistics, and knowing that some of those offences will have been committed by people who have previously been found guilty and punished by the court, including the punishment of prison, it is surely in the public interest in terms of the cost of punishing reoffenders, as well as protecting people who may become the victims of violent offences, that we target everything that we can on reducing the likelihood of reoffending. In the circumstances of today, we should take this new clause very seriously indeed.
It is a matter of regret that the Minister considers it enough that an offender who is released and commits another offence should receive a further and heavier sentence. My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary revealed last year the difficulties and inconsistencies between different courts and the fact that it is not possible to guarantee that those who commit subsequent offences of violence will get a heavier sentence. Indeed, there are many cases in which reoffending led to a lighter rather than a heavier sentence. There is no difference between us in wanting consistency and progression in the sentence passed by the court, but it would be far better, once we have identified that somebody is a violent offender, to try to prevent their committing further offences once they have served their punishment.
There are anecdotes of people who took a long time to stop offending, about people who suddenly realised, through a new relationship but also through things such as supervision, that what they were doing was childish and was damaging the lives of their victims. We heard recently, in the all-party group on penal affairs, a couple of offenders speaking about their experience. They said how they had been changed dramatically by the counselling and help that they had received. We need to increase the likelihood that somebody will decide not to continue to commit violent offences, and that they will begin to realise that they must take responsibility for their behaviour. That is the purpose of supervision.
Supervision is not a panacea—I do not pretend that it is a magic wand—but it can be effective. We want to increase its effectiveness. The Minister suggested that it becomes less likely that supervision will be required and less likely that young men will reoffend violently as they get older. Statistically, that is true. Statistically, there is a dropping off in the number who offend, but that does not happen in every case. There are some violent, nasty and vicious old men, as well as violent, nasty and vicious young men. There are people who will continue in a negative pattern of behaviour unless something happens to change them. Perhaps that change will come about in prison, particularly if the regime is positive and constructive, as well as involving the loss of liberty, but it is also likely to come through constructive intervention under supervision, either in the community, in the general sense, or after release. We believe that the Bill will be left too weak unless the new clause is accepted.
The Minister's finding is statistical rather than one that addresses reality: a violent offence is committed by one individual on another individual or individuals. We must look carefully at the motivation and thinking of those individuals and how we can positively and effectively intervene with them.
The Minister also referred to 19 individual contacts. It is not adequate to require a probationer, after he is released from prison, merely to turn up at the probation office on a number of occasions: clocking in and getting a tick on a sheet is not sufficient. In Committee, the Minister referred to the national standards for supervision—we had a discussion about them. The point of such standards is to ensure that intervention is positive and effective, and that it is targeted at individual circumstances and behaviour. We should have high standards of intervention and supervision, and such standards should constantly be improved.
I am the first to accept that in any profession there is good and bad practice; it is not good practice for people merely to turn up and get a tick. Good practice involves people's behaviour being challenged, or perhaps their being referred to voluntary organisations that encourage people to live positive and useful lives. We should build on good practice and criticise the failings when the system is less than perfect. The Minister seems to believe in nominal supervision. In view of his expertise, we must assume that his view is based on research.
5 pm
It is important to increase the oversight of violent offenders when they are released. We must ensure that there is proper and adequate supervision to minimise the chances of their committing further acts of violence. For that reason, we will vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 279.

Division No. 34]
[5.1 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Derek


Ainger, Nick
Foster, Don (Bath)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Foulkes, George


Allen, Graham
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Garrett, John


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
George, Bruce


Ashdown, Paddy
Gerrard, Neil


Austin-Walker, John
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Battle, John
Gunnell, John


Bayley, Hugh
Hain, Peter


Beith, A J
Hanson, David


Benn, Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, Andrew F
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Harvey, Nick


Berry, Roger
Hattersley, Roy


Betts, Clive
Henderson, Doug


Blair, Tony
Heppell, John


Bradley, Keith
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hoey, Kate


Burden, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)


Byers, Stephen
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Hoon, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim
Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Dr Kim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Cann, Jamie
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Chidgey, David
Hutton, John


Clapham, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Eric (Midbthian)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cox, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald


Cummings, John
Keen, Alan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Khabra, Piara S


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Lewis, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Denham, John
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Dowd, Jim
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Lynne, Ms Liz


Eastham, Ken
McFall, John


Ennis, Jeff
Mackinlay, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McLeish, Henry


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maclennan, Robert


Fatchett, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Faulds, Andrew
MacShane, Denis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Maddock, Mrs Diana





Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheldon, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Short, Clare


Michael, Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Miller, Andrew
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Spellar, John


Morgan, Rhodri
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Morley, Elliot
Steel, Sir David


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stevenson, George


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Dr Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Straw, Jack


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Olner, Bill
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Neill, Martin
Thumham, Peter


Orme, Stanley
Timms, Stephen


Pearson, Ian
Tipping, Paddy


Pendry, Tom
Trickett, Jon


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis


Pike, Peter L
Vaz, Keith


Pope, Greg
Walker, Sir Harold


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Watson, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Winnick, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Worthington, Tony


Rogers, Allan
Wright, Dr Tony


Rooker, Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Mr. Joe Benton and


Rowlands, Ted
Mrs. Jane Kennedy.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bright, Sir Graham


Aitken, Jonathan
Brooke, Peter


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Arbuthnot, James
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Ashby, David
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Robert
Butler, Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Bates, Michael
Churchill, Mr


Batiste, Spencer
Clappison, James


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochfd)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Biffen, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Body, Sir Richard
Coe, Sebastian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Congdon, David


Boswell, Tim
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Cope, Sir John


Bowis, John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Couchman, James


Brandreth, Gyles
Curry, David


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)






Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Duncan Smith, Iain
Knapman, Roger


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knox, Sir David


Evans, David (Welwyn Half'ld)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lamont, Norman


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luff, Peter


Fowler, Sir Norman
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
MacGregor, John


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacKay, Andrew


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Madel, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Mariand, Paul


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, Harry (Ealling N)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, John
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hague, William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Molyneaux, Sir James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, Andrew
Neubert, Sir Michael


Harris, David
Newton, Tony


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heath, Sir Edward
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heseltine, Michael
Patten, John


Hicks, Sir Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Sir Terence
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Porter, David


Horam, John
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Hurd, Douglas
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jack, Michael
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ryder, Richard


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Sackville, Tom


Jopling, Michael
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy





Scott, Sir Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shephard, Mrs Gillian
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Sir Michael
Tredinnick, David


Sims, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Trotter, Neville


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Viggers, Peter


Soames, Nicholas
Waldegrave, William


Speed, Sir Keith
Walden, George


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Spring, Richard
Watts, John


Sproat, Iain
Wheeler, Sir John


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Stanley, Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stem, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Streeter, Gary
Willetts, David


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Young, Sir George


Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomason, Roy
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 2

REQUIREMENT UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO ESTABLISH COURT PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT SCHEMES

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and prior to sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered.
(2) The regulations may be made so as to apply only to specified geographical areas.
(3) In this section "psychiatric examination" means the examination of the mental condition of persons by a medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Court psychiatric assessment schemes—

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and before sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered.
(2) Regulations made under this section may be made so as to apply only in specified areas.'.

New clause 12—Court to be aware of provision in custody for mentally disordered offenders—


'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be mentally disordered an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.'.
Amendment No. 37, in clause 43, page 31, leave out lines 30 to 34.

Mr. Michael: The new clauses and the amendment—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I ask that there be much greater quietness in the Chamber and that hon. Members who intend to leave do so quickly and quietly.

Mr. Michael: The new clauses and amendment deal with an important issue, which is the way in which we deal with mentally ill offenders. Hon. Members will be familiar with recent horrific headlines, such as the question posed by the Daily Express:
Why Was Machete Man Free?
The Times of 13 December 1996 proclaims:
Zito's killer wins right to sue over 'inadequate' care".
The House must answer such proper questions. In the case of Christopher Clunis, who killed Jonathan Zito, there are questions about the efficacy of community care and about the system's failure to act on problems known long before the tragic offence that led to Clunis's court appearance. The introductory paragraph of the Daily Express story on Horrett Campbell states:
A court knew machete maniac Horrett Campbell had mental problems months before he attacked children at a teddy bears' picnic.
Such facts demonstrate why we have introduced the new clauses.
We believe that courts must have powers and systems in place to ensure that mental illness is identified and dealt with, before sentence, by the courts and, after sentence, by prison staff or by means of the disposal chosen by the courts. Far too often, prisoners have mental conditions that are known to the responsible authorities, but far too little happens and there is inadequate treatment for the problems, with the result that offenders reoffend. The heart of this debate is the need to ensure that the courts and criminal justice system are effective in nipping matters in the bud and preventing reoffending.
One cannot prevent every breakdown in the system after the commission of an offence and a diagnosis of mental illness, but I should be surprised if anyone were to say that the system is perfect and there is no need for change. There is a need in the criminal justice system for change, for great improvement and for greater effectiveness.
New clause 2 would provide for
psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and prior to sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered.
It would provide courts, without delay, with the ability to satisfy themselves as to the existence of mental illness in cases in which there appears to be a problem, and with the provisions for a proper sentence.
New clause 8 would provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations
for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination
of offenders after conviction, and would allow for those regulations
to apply only in specified areas.
The two new clauses are, therefore, alternatives. New clause 8 would offer the possibility of addressing the issue over time through the introduction of specific pilot projects and experiments. If the Minister is unable to accept new clause 2, he may find that new clause 8—which would go part but not all the way to dealing with the matter—has some advantages.

Mr. Soley: Does my hon. Friend believe that, when a person who appears to be mentally ill is first brought before a court, the court might suggest that he or she should be held for observation under section 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983—which may enable the court, then or soon afterwards, to make an appropriate disposal under that Act?

Mr. Michael: I understand that point, but I think that the interface between the mental health and criminal justice systems is uneven. However, that issue goes way beyond what we want to achieve in new clause 8. We want the court, in taking its decision, to be in the best possible position to understand both the offence and the offender. New clause 12—the third new clause in the group—is extremely important in dealing with that issue. Various disposals—those not only under mental health but under criminal justice provisions—are available to the court, and, after considering reports, it may want to take one of those options. Under our proposals, the court would have the information that would allow it to do so.
In new clause 12, we want to place a duty on the Secretary of State
to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be mentally disordered an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.
Therefore, authorities would have a duty to ensure that the court is aware that facilities for the treatment of mental illness are available should it impose a prison sentence on an offender who requires such treatment. Moreover, the provision would increase pressure on the Home Secretary and the Prison Service to ensure that adequate services are available to treat people with mental illness in the prison system.
Under the proposals, courts would have a choice of disposal, and they might choose the option suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). However, as we know, many mentally ill offenders are simply sent to prison, and new clause 12 would ensure that appropriate treatment is available to them. The purpose of treatment is not only to deal with offenders' mental conditions but to reduce the likelihood of their reoffending. Many of those who enter the prison system and do not receive treatment for their conditions return to the streets more likely to reoffend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and some of my colleagues on the health team have taken a strong interest in the serious issue of


the overlap between the criminal justice and health systems. We cannot be happy that the two systems, individually or together, do not provide the effective services that the public and those who require mental health treatment have a right to expect. I hope that those comments answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and set in context the first two new clauses. I also hope that they demonstrate how we are attempting to improve the situation more widely within the Prison Service.
Amendment No. 37, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), is grouped with the three new clauses, although I shall not deal with it now as I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will speak to it in his own manner. I am sure, however, that we shall be at one in attempting to make the criminal justice system more effective in tackling the problem of mental illness among offenders.
New clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish court psychiatric assessment schemes in magistrates courts, to enable both accused defendants and convicted offenders to be examined psychiatrically on court premises. It is framed so that the Secretary of State could implement it on an area-by-area basis.
In the year ending 31 March 1995, 2,481 psychiatric reports were prepared on defendants remanded in custody. Prison is one of the worst possible places for someone with a mental disorder. We all know of the gloomy conditions and restrictive regimes in the older Victorian prisons, which are likely to exacerbate the mental health problems of prisoners prone to depression and those suffering from a disorder with a depressive element. Such conditions can increase the risk of suicidal self-mutilation among those prisoners and do nothing to reduce the likelihood of them being released from prison in a condition worse than that in which they started their sentence.
Medical experts have made considerable comment on the issue. A recent research study published by the British Medical Journal in December 1996 of 750 male remand prisoners in 13 adult prisons and three young offenders institutions found psychiatric disorders, which were broadly defined to include substance misuse—that is not the subject of the debate, but will be debated when we come to a new clause to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North—in 63 per cent. of inmates. Even with such a broad definition, that is an enormous proportion of the prison population with psychiatric disorders. Apart from substance abuse, diagnosed in 38 per cent. of cases, the main diagnoses were neurotic illness at 26 per cent., personality disorder at 11 per cent. and psychosis at 5 per cent.
5.30 pm
The researchers judged that 9 per cent. needed transfer to an NHS hospital. They wrote:
It is government policy that prisoners on remand who have a serious mental disorder should be transferred to a psychiatric hospital but this is often not done. Even when a prisoner is transferred there are delays, during which the patient remains in

prison and is at increased risk of self-harm and suicide … In addition to causing unnecessary suffering to mentally ill prisoners, this situation creates a risk to the public.
I stress those last words, because we are highlighting not just the risk to the individual, but the risk to the public.
The report continues:
Three recent inquiries into killings by mentally ill people described previous remands in custody during which mental disorder was recognised but not adequately managed. Some of the most difficult psychiatric patients in the country are assessed and treated entirely within prisons, which are not designed for this purpose and cannot match the standards of hospitals.
I do not want to enter into the debate about where people should be placed. It is a difficult debate and professional views have been expressed on it. Some parts of the Bill are helpful, offering a more sympathetic assessment and more flexibility. However, the report makes it clear that conditions in our prisons result in people not receiving the treatment that they need.
An earlier study of mentally disordered remand prisoners' carried out for the Home Office by Adrian Grounds, Susanne Dell and Katie James of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology and Graham Robertson of the Institute of Psychiatry, examined details of 952 remand prisoners in Holloway, Brixton and Risley prisons over a five to six-month period who came to the attention of prison doctors for psychiatric reasons. Only a small proportion of them had been charged with serious crimes of violence. Most had been charged with relatively minor offences, predominantly theft, public nuisance offences or criminal damage. When hospital orders were subsequently made, the subjects were routinely sent back to prison to await admission for up to 28 days.
We should pay attention to the researchers' conclusions, which
showed remands in custody to be not only an inhumane, but an ineffective way of securing help and care for disturbed people.
Even those who are not concerned about the inhumanity of the failure to treat conditions speedily should be concerned about the ineffectiveness of the current process.
The report goes on:
For those who obtained hospital places it meant weeks or months of imprisonment, at the end of which they were admitted to beds for which they had been qualified at the outset. And for the mentally ill people who were not offered beds, the process was equally unsatisfactory. In most cases they were petty offenders without social roots, for whom magistrates had evidently ordered custodial remands in the hope that some kind of solution to their problems would be found. After weeks in prison they were generally discharged back to the situations they had come from without the courts being about to arrange for accommodation, treatment or support.
Many magistrates and judges agree to a disposal in the hope not only that the person's liberty will be lost by the sentence, but that the condition that has led to, or been a contributory factor in, their offending will be addressed. It is therefore important to improve greatly the standards of both assessment and treatment. Both are addressed by our new clauses.
The study goes on:
We concluded from our study that as a method of obtaining psychiatric help for mentally disordered offenders, the custodial remand has nothing to commend it: it is inhumane, expensive and ineffective. It exposes mentally disordered people to conditions and regimes which are cruelly harsh and inappropriate. It brings into prison thousands of defendants who do not need to be there and for whom penal disposals are never contemplated.


Regardless of whether that general conclusion is accepted, it surely cannot be denied that there is a problem to be addressed and that our new clauses address both sides of that problem.
One important approach to tackling the problem, commended by Home Office circulars in 1990 and 1995—during the time in office of existing Ministers—is the establishment of court psychiatric assessment schemes. Some such schemes involve psychiatrists attending court on a sessional basis to carry out psychiatric assessments and to make oral reports to the courts. Others involve initial screening at court by community psychiatric nurses. Our new clauses would allow the flexibility for that initial assessment by psychiatric nurses, avoiding excessive costs falling on the system.
A study of a psychiatric liaison service at Clerkenwell magistrates court, published in 1991, reported on the impact of a scheme in which two psychiatrists attended court to examine people in custody on whom psychiatric reports had been requested and gave oral reports to the court on the same day. We all agree that speed is of the essence when deciding disposal in court and, when possible, long delays and adjournments to obtain information should be avoided. We want to help to speed up the court process.
When hospital orders were made, direct admission to the hospital from the court was arranged if possible. The authors compared the outcomes of 80 referrals to the psychiatric liaison scheme over a nine-month period with those of 50 offenders given hospital orders by London magistrates courts after being remanded to Brixton prison for reports. The psychiatrist attending Clerkenwell court recommended hospital admission in 39 of the 80 cases. For those reaching hospital through the scheme, the mean number of days from arrest to admission—the time between the arrest and something starting to happen—was 8.7. In contrast, for those remanded to Brixton, the mean time from arrest to hospital admission was 50.8 days. That is a remarkable difference.
A study of the psychiatric assessment service based at Bow Street and Marlborough Street magistrates courts was published in 1993. During the 18 months of that study, there were 201 referrals to the service. Following initial assessment, 51 people were admitted directly to hospital and 14 were admitted following a further period in custody. For the 65 hospital admissions, the average time from court assessment to admission was 10 days. A further 101 people were released after assessment. Some 58 cases were discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service and 99 were dealt with by conditional discharge, fines or probation orders. A follow-up study of the 65 people admitted to hospital found that 77 per cent. had derived some or marked benefit from psychiatric treatment.
All that research highlights why there is such a widespread problem that needs to be addressed. It will not be addressed adequately unless our new clauses are accepted.
The interdepartmental Reed committee report of 1992 recommended that
there should be nationwide provision of properly resourced court assessment and diversion schemes
and that

purchasers and providers of health and social services must regard the availability of assessment and diversion schemes as part of a standard service.
That would draw together the expertise of the health service and the Prison Service, as we would surely want.
From 1993, the Home Office has made available funding to meet the sessional costs or fees of psychiatrists or community psychiatric nurses who attend magistrates courts. The 1996 Home Office annual report said that the total funding provided to date amounted to just over £1 million and that 53 schemes were funded.
A growing number of schemes are funded from other sources. In Committee, the Under—Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), said that, in total, 130 schemes were in operation. He added:
Further good news is the fact that the £1 million currently allocated by the Home Office for the purpose will be substantially increased—I cannot give the exact figure because it is not yet finalised, but it will be substantial. Other schemes will therefore also receive financial support.
There is a powerful argument for the establishment of psychiatric assessment schemes throughout the country. I take it from the Minister's remarks that he would agree with the Opposition on that general principle.
Although no recent cost evaluation has been published, the 1991 study of the Clerkenwell scheme estimated that it was saving the Prison Service approximately £17,800 a month, which amounted to several times the cost of the two psychiatrists' attendance fees. It can therefore be realistically argued that the development of such schemes does not involve any overall increase in public expenditure. Labour was disappointed in Committee that the Under-Secretary did not accept the argument on the ground that
it is not necessary to amend the Bill to achieve what those on both sides of the Committee want".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 346.]
A statutory requirement to establish such schemes would, however, reinforce the trend towards their extension, promote more consistency of provision throughout the country and safeguard such schemes in future against the risk that they might be sacrificed in expenditure cuts.
In complementing such a requirement, new clause 12 would place on the Secretary of State the onus to make available
an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution".
That is intended to ensure not only that the need for treatment for mental illness is identified, but that there is necessary provision in the criminal justice system for those who are transferred to a custodial institution.
The most recent study on the matter, that conducted by the British Medical Journal, showed the extent to which there was a prevalence of psychiatric disorders. It also showed that there is a need to tackle problems during a sentence, not only for humanitarian reasons—although those are essential in themselves—but because failure to do so greatly increases the risk of reoffending. In the Home Office's national prisons survey in 1991, 41 per cent. of prisoners cited drink or drugs as contributing factors when asked for their reasons for reoffending. It is clear from research that there is a link between drink and drug-related problems and psychiatric problems. Very often, one is laid on top of the other.
If we bear in mind the fact that, as I cited earlier, the BMJ stated:
Some of the most difficult psychiatric patients in the country are assessed and treated entirely within prisons",
we must surely do something to address the quality and nature of the treatment that they receive. By placing the onus on the Home Secretary to certify to the court the availability of provision, the new clause will ensure that there is much closer and effective oversight by the Home Secretary and the Home Office.
The combination of the new clauses ensures first that assessment is made on a proper understanding of the mental illness of any offender who comes before the court after the person has been found guilty but before the court decides the sentence, and that, secondly, for those who on the decision of the court go to prison or any other institution, the appropriate system of treatment for their mental illness is put in place.
The balance of the new clauses makes a very positive contribution, especially given the paucity and poorness of facilities in many of our prisons, which has been highlighted on a number of occasions. I commend the new clauses to the House not only because they are right but because they address the horrific headlines that identified people who went on to commit the most violent of crimes, including murder, after a court had been in possession of the facts about their mental illnesses and should therefore have been in a position to intervene.
The acceptance of the new clauses will increase the likelihood of a court, in the knowledge of a condition that requires treatment, being able to decide on the sentence and disposal on the basis of accurate information. It will also enable courts to have confidence that, during the period in which people are deprived of their liberty in prison, they will receive the psychiatric treatment that may help them to leave prison less rather than more likely to reoffend, and less likely to reoffend to the serious extent highlighted in headlines.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The three new clauses and the amendment deal with three important issues. The first is the question of gatekeeping in magistrates courts to try to ensure that those who are mentally ill are recognised as such. The second deals with the nature of the provision that is available in prisons—an important issue relating to the sentencing choice made by the court. The third, which is addressed by amendment No. 37, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to the question whether a person suffering from mental illness, other than those who are diagnosed as psychopaths, should fall within certain of the new provisions.
I turn to the gatekeeping role—contained particularly usefully in new clause 8, which provides for pilot projects and for them to apply in selected areas. We know from statistics, which have already been cited by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), many articles, Home Office research and comments of prison staff that a great many prisoners, including very many who are serving short sentences for relatively minor offences, are suffering from various forms of mental illness. It is certainly correct that many who appear before

magistrates courts do so when they are suffering from mental illnesses that do not put their or anybody else's life in danger. They are however suffering from mental illnesses that put the safety and security of themselves and those members of the public against whom they commit offences at risk.
It is extremely expensive and destructive to treat people with minor depressive illnesses and other conditions such as untreated but potentially treatable schizophrenia by locking them up in prison. Such treatment does little to resolve their mental illness. Despite what is sometimes said, it is quite clear that the treatment for minor psychiatric illnesses in prisons for short-term prisoners is lacking and, sometimes, verging on the pitiful, and that prisoners emerge from prison not having been treated for the mental illnesses from which they are suffering. It therefore seems entirely sensible that pilot projects should be set up for gatekeeper psychiatry to be made available in the busier magistrates courts.
I do not suppose that such problems arise very often in rural and small-town magistrates courts because generally people are much better known in those areas for their idiosyncrasies, there is often more time to deal with cases and probation officers know the defendants and their families rather better. If one talks to magistrates in the big cities—I had a conversation on the subject recently with a stipendiary magistrate in one of our great cities—one hears that a significant proportion of the people who appear before the courts do so when suffering from some discernible psychiatric condition. Although pre-sentence reports are prepared before any custodial sentences are passed, they do not offer a full opportunity for a medical assessment to be made. It seems sensible that, at the least, experienced psychiatric nurses should be made routinely available to carry out examinations so that those who are suffering from apparent mental illness can be screened into medical procedures rather than forced into an otherwise inevitable cycle of minor criminality and imprisonment which may ruin the rest of their lives and the lives of their nearest and dearest.
New clause 12 deals with the second issue. Courts are faced every day with choices on sentencing, despite some of the Government's best efforts. Sometimes judges and magistrates face a choice between an order that involves mental health provision and a sentence of imprisonment. Judges may feel that the level of culpability of the offender, despite a psychiatric condition, is high; and may feel that the appropriate sentence would be one of imprisonment with appropriate psychiatric provision during that sentence. Believe it or not—and some would not believe it—judges approach such problems responsibly and have a genuine interest in what happens to the people they sentence, especially if the offenders are suffering from psychiatric conditions that have affected their criminality.
Judges would be more ready, in some cases, to pass prison sentences if they knew that the prisoners' conditions would be treated appropriately in prison. In most such cases at present, the judge has no way of knowing what psychiatric treatment will be given in prison. Indeed, if a judge inquires, save in the most serious cases, about what will be done if he passes a sentence of imprisonment, he will receive no answer or the most general of answers. New clause 12 would resolve that situation responsibly.
I turn to amendment No. 37. Clause 43 will insert a new section 45A into the Mental Health Act 1983. It will empower courts to pass prison sentences with what are called "hospital and limitation" directions on mentally disordered offenders, and section 45A(2) will provide that that power should apply to psychopathic offenders. I have no complaint about that because those powers will be useful and will enable hospital and limitation directions to be passed on psychopathic offenders. The reason for the power is that there are often doubts about whether offenders suffering from psychopathic disorder will be receptive to treatment. Psychiatry is, if the psychiatrists will forgive me for saying so, often as much art as science, and frequently a question of trial and error. It is sometimes the case that psychiatrists will be able to treat psychopaths usefully by, for example, removing the trait—by medication or other treatment—that makes the offender a danger. After treatment, a psychopath might not be especially dangerous. Nevertheless, it is right that those who bear significant responsibility for their criminal offences, albeit that they are psychopathic, should serve their sentences of imprisonment. Clause 43 will ensure that that can happen.
The new section 45A(10), however, will enable the Secretary of State to extend the power by order to cover other categories of mentally disordered offenders, including not merely those suffering from a psychopathic condition but those suffering from a discernible and diagnosable mental illness. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum explains that the provision in clause 43
will be implemented in two or more phases.
Presumably, subsequent phases will cover other categories of mentally disordered offenders other than psychopaths.
The Reed report of 1994 was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The joint Department of Health and Home Office working group, chaired by Dr. John Reed, recommended a version of the hybrid order when it reported in 1994, but it did not recommend the version that is included in the Bill. The working group's recommendation was limited to offenders suffering from psychopathic disorders. The White Paper, in contrast, proposed to make the order available for other categories of mental disorder and mental impairment. Moreover, under the 1994 proposals by the Reed working group, the offender would be transferred back to prison only if hospital treatment were inappropriate or refused, whereas the order proposed by the Government would involve automatic return to prison even if treatment were successful.
The 1996 discussion paper issued by the Home Office and the Department of Health recognised that the development of the hybrid concept beyond the recommendations of the Reed working group could raise difficulties. In particular, the paper recognised that the uncertainties about treatability which characterise psychopathic disorder are rarely present in cases of true mental illness. In cases of diagnosable and definable mental illness, it is beneficial for rehabilitation to be managed in a flexible time frame and for there to be continuity of care if the patient is to make a successful return to the community with minimum risk to the public. There is no evidence that that could be achieved if the provisions were to be extended from psychopathy to people suffering from mental illness who then found

themselves being returned to prison. The machinery simply does not exist in prison to provide the follow-through that would be needed and that is why both the Reed working group and the joint discussion paper identified that as a problem.
I do not need to repeat the protests that have arisen as a result of the proposals. Opposition in unison has come from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Nursing, MIND, the Law Society, the Penal Affairs Consortium and others. I suggest to Ministers that it is not necessary to include a provision that would extend the new hospital and limitation directions beyond those who are suffering from psychopathy. There is no evidence that such powers are necessary, but there is evidence that they would be detrimental to the care of mentally ill people. Indeed, if orders are made under section 45A(10), the resulting hybrid order could increase the number of mentally disturbed offenders detained in hospital beyond the period of clinical necessity because doctors would be reluctant to remit patients to prison, either because that would be clinically unwise or because they believed that it would be medically unethical to do so. Furthermore, if hospital and limitation directions were linked with determinate sentences, some offenders might be released sooner than if they had been admitted on an indeterminate restriction order under the Mental Health Act 1983.
I urge the Minister to think again about amendment No. 37 and to leave the matter open, at least until the Bill completes its stages in another place—if that is ever to happen—so that a measure too far need not be taken.

Mr. Soley: This interesting group of amendments and new clauses gives the Government an opportunity to work with the Opposition in looking at what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) rightly called the interface between our criminal justice system and mental health services. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will have some knowledge of this area following his previous ministerial responsibility in the Department of Health.
The one caveat that I have about the new clauses is that I do not think that we should assume that a good psychiatric assessment can be made within the confines of a court or that we can act on that assessment by making a long-term committal to a psychiatric hospital. The new clauses would not be suitable for that, although I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is thinking of the matter in those terms.

Mr. Michael: It is more likely that such circumstances will be identified so that appropriate action can be taken, and we claim no more than that for the amendments in dealing with the sort of cases to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Soley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification, which he also gave me when I intervened earlier. There is a real possibility here of identifying some mentally ill offenders at an early stage and of taking appropriate action.
6 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to the experiment at Clerkenwell court—a court I know extremely well, as I served there for some


10 years, first as a probation officer and then as senior probation officer. I was then committed to this institution at the 1979 general election on an indeterminate sentence. There is no hope of parole here—just the steady erosion of one's personality.
In an inner-city court such as Clerkenwell—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to this matter—it can be difficult to deal with these cases. Clerkenwell covers two major rail terminals—King's Cross and Euston. Many of the people dealt with by the court were on the move, had shattered life styles and were mentally ill. It does not surprise me that a large proportion of such defendants are mentally ill, and the figures suggest that close to 50 per cent. have a definable mental illness. If the figures are correct, they give us advance warning and an idea of what could be achieved by better co-ordination between the criminal justice system and the NHS on mental health.
For example, I wish to refer to section 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which allows for detention in an NHS hospital for a period of observation. There is no doubt that many people who end up in magistrates courts are on the edge of mental illness, and are facing an incipient breakdown or perhaps full mental illness. Having the section 38 procedure readily available to a court—because a psychiatrist is present—could be of great benefit not only to the court and the offender, but to the community.
When I was a probation officer at Clerkenwell, people who one knew to be psychiatrically ill—and who the magistrates knew to be ill from their general judgment of the defendant's demeanour and behaviour—were nevertheless released into the community immediately because one could not justify a custodial sentence or a remanding in custody except in special circumstances; he or she might be a danger to other people, for example. The defendant would be released again and could possibly break down within the community. If we could do more to focus our attention on people when they first come before magistrates courts, it would be beneficial in terms of spotting the mentally ill.
I emphasise the importance of the care in the community procedures. I am a great supporter of care in the community in principle, but without the proper resources care in the community is a disaster, as has been demonstrated by the Zito case and others. The tragedy—as many hon. Members will be aware from their postbags—is that many people are not getting the degree of care in the community that they need to prevent a collapse into a full psychotic state, perhaps because they are not taking a course of drugs. It is possible—although it is important to remember that this occurs only in a minority of cases—that they will resort to some sort of dangerous and violent offending behaviour.
The idea of having a psychiatrist present or available to a court is useful. I do not pretend that a psychiatrist should be present in every court in the land, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has hit on a good point in saying that it would be an advantage in a number of areas. It would enable us to spot those people who are supposed to be getting care in the community but are not getting it, and who are, as a result, offending. At the moment, such a person appears in court—more often than not for a petty offence—and is either remanded on bail or in custody for a psychiatric

report. Three or four weeks later, he or she comes back to court and is disposed of by the court—perhaps by way of a mental health order, but more likely by a custodial or non-custodial sentence of a conventional type. There may be no effective follow-up to the sentence unless psychiatric and probation reports indicate the direction that the court should take on the level of psychiatric or probationary supervision.
The Minister must address an issue that the Minister of State failed to address on the previous occasion that I spoke on this matter. The issue is relevant to the group of amendments and deals with the way in which we treat mentally ill people who murder. As I stated previously, we persist in having a full inquiry when someone who is mentally ill murders, although no such inquiry takes place when a sane person murders. I am not sure what the point of that is. These inquiries cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and we must consider carefully whether the system should continue. I do not expect an immediate answer, but we must look at whether it is sensible to have full and expensive inquiries every time a mentally ill person murders. Perhaps we should have an assessment of the causes and the background of the murder which might apply to the sane and the insane.
It is bizarre that we spend vast amounts of money on inquiries—some of which produce useful conclusions, some of which do not. But the present system suggests that a murder committed by a mentally ill person is more fearful or terrifying than a conventional murder. Frankly, if one has been murdered, it does not matter too much whether the person who did it was mentally ill or not. That is a serious point, and we should assess more effectively the background to murder rather than the background of those who murder and who are psychiatrically ill. This is a complex area that I know the Department has thought about from time to time. I will give the Minister time to respond to the matter before I leave for an appointment that I must keep. But if I am not here when he replies, I assure him that I will look carefully at his comments in Hansard.
My final point deals with the issue of psychopathy, which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Most psychiatrists agree that psychopathy is not a treatable condition, and that is why it is not described as such in the Mental Health Act 1983. It is true that some drugs and other forms of treatment can help, but we are on a slippery slope if we start giving drug treatments to people who are not defined as mentally ill under the Mental Health Act. Some special units have been set up to deal with people who have a psychopathic personality, as it has been labelled—frankly, that is a bit of a dustbin label. We must concede that there is no known method of treatment that guarantees any form of advantage, but there are ways of treating and constraining such people that one can have reasonable confidence are helpful.
We should give more attention to such people who come before the courts and need treatment, as the general public's image of a psychopath is of a raving lunatic who is out to kill. In fact, the vast majority of psychopaths—as they are labelled—are rather inadequate and pathetic individuals who repeat their offences over and over again. They do not seem to learn from their behaviour, and generally are not liked by anyone. They are often very isolated individuals as well.
In all seriousness, there is a problem because we write people off with a dustbin label and talk about psychiatric treatment, which in most cases is not relevant, appropriate or effective. There are treatments, such as group therapy and other treatments in a residential setting, which can help such people. If we want to stop the persistent minor offenders who are a menace to everyone and whose behaviour in public causes discomfort to most people, we might do better to focus on such treatments rather than on drug treatments, which have certainly not been proven to offer any advantage and can have dangerous outcomes.

Mr. Denis MacShane: The concerns about these matters have been brought home to me in at least two serious constituency cases in the past couple of years, in which crimes were committed by people who were not given adequate psychiatric counselling or assessment before release.
This is an example of a matter on which Parliament should work at its best. The new clauses are practical and sensible and have been tabled by Opposition Members of considerable experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is a Justice of the Peace, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is a Queen's counsel and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has deep experience of the probation service.
The public will ask why the Government refuse to accept new clauses that suggest experiments, are modest in their reach and would none the less contribute to people feeling a little more secure about the process of sentencing in magistrates courts. The underlying philosophy is simple: an ounce of prevention or of knowledge is worth more than a ton of cure or retribution.
I shall refer the Minister, perhaps after the debate, to a wonderful book by a leading Rotherham criminal solicitor, Mr. Stephen Smith, who works in the local magistrates courts. The book contains true-life stories of the past 20 years of his life as a professional solicitor. Time and again, he has had to defend the most inadequate and pathetic characters, who make great copy for a book but who have not been given a helping hand. They do not need an overdose of counselling, but they merely need a helping hand in terms of assessment, to allow the criminal justice system to treat them with due respect as citizens and human beings.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned the useful role of the probation service. In South Yorkshire, the probation service faces both cuts and a redefinition of its role that will take away the knowledge and training available to it and its ability to intervene adequately in such cases.
I do not suppose that the Minister will accept the new clauses at this stage, given the nature of our system of government, in which no amount of common sense or intervention can make any difference once the steamroller has been set in motion, but perhaps, if time allows, more serious and mature consideration can be given to the proposals in another place.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): This has been an interesting and thoughtful debate about a subject that has to be addressed: the appropriateness of sentencing and disposals for some people who may be mentally disordered and who in the past may often have been remanded to prison inappropriately.
The value of mental health assessment at magistrates courts is fully accepted and the Home Office has been active in encouraging the development of such schemes. Guidance was issued, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, in 1990 and 1995, and funds were made available to assist with the costs of medical staff attending court. Support has been increased from £0.5 million in 1993 to more than £1 million this year, and substantial additional funding is expected to be available from the next financial year.
In 1990, there were only a handful of such local arrangements; now there are about 130 schemes in operation, some of which cover more than one court. In addition, some courts have access to a panel of mental health care professionals away from the court; the Home Office is helping to pay for 53 of those this year, but many more are funded from local resources. I do not regard Home Office central funding as the main way in which such schemes should be financed, but such funding is available because we are extremely keen to encourage them.
6.15 pm
It is important not to be prescriptive about how such schemes should operate; they are local initiatives and it would be unhelpful to tie the hands of the local agencies involved, which are best placed to devise the right response to local needs and to make the most effective use of the available resources.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) talked about flexibility. I am not sure whether the new clauses would achieve that. Two points of detail may illustrate the point. First, the new clauses appear to limit those who can run the schemes to doctors, as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983, when in fact teams of community psychiatric nurses and others would be, and are, involved.
Secondly, it would be a step back to restrict assessment to the pre-sentence stage, as that would limit examination to those who had been convicted and exclude those on remand. A major benefit of any assessment scheme would be the early identification of mental disorder and the availability of advice to the court at first hearings, to avoid unnecessary remands to prison.
On new clause 12, existing arrangements for sentencing mentally disordered offenders already require the court to consider the offender's condition and the treatment available for it before passing a custodial sentence. When there is evidence of a treatable mental disorder, the court can make a hospital order in most cases. If the offender is psychopathically disordered, the court will have the option under clause 43 of attaching a hospital direction to a custodial sentence. Our aim is to extend the hospital direction to other mental disorders.
If, having considered the offender's mental state, the court has not selected one of those options, the question of the availability of treatment in the custodial setting is unlikely to serve any purpose and should not be a major part of the sentencing decision.
It may be argued that information about treatment facilities would allow the court to express a view about where the offender should serve his or her sentence—that is clearly part of the thrust of new clause 12—but I do not think that it is either sensible or appropriate to predict at the time of sentencing where a sentence will be served,


and it is not part of the court's function to direct offenders to specific Prison Service establishments. That decision is for the Prison Service, which will keep the offender's placement under review, considering a wide range of factors, including the prisoner's response to different prison regimes and the appropriateness and availability of specific programmes and treatment during the sentence.
I recognise that there may be prisoners whose mental condition at the time of sentence may not be such as to justify imposing a hospital order or a hospital direction, but that need not prevent treatment from being provided. The Prison Service has procedures in place to identify prisoners who are suffering from recognised categories of mental disorder. The identification can be on first reception into prison after sentence or, for those who develop such disorders, during the course of a term of imprisonment.
Where a prisoner is suffering from mental disorder so severe that he or she needs treatment in a psychiatric hospital, the prison doctor will seek to arrange his or her transfer to such a facility, using procedures provided in section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The number of sentenced prisoners transferred to hospitals by direction of the Home Secretary under that provision has increased significantly in recent years, from 87 in 1985, to 145 in 1990, to 251 in 1995. There are already arrangements in place to identify offenders suffering from mental disorder who would be better held and treated in hospital. If an offender appears to be mentally disordered, the court will have considered evidence about his or her need for treatment before sentencing. If the offender needs treatment in hospital, he or she should be sent to hospital either by the court on sentencing or by warrant of the Home Secretary. It is not clear what the courts would be expected to do with the information that new clause 12 proposes that they should have.

Mr. Alex Carlile: If he will forgive me for saying so, the Minister is to some extent ducking the question. The real question is not about people who are so ill that they are sent to mental hospitals for treatment, but about people suffering from relatively minor psychiatric illnesses, such as depression or incipient schizophrenia. Surely he would agree that in the real world, the Prison Service fails to give people the treatment that would, in many cases, prevent them from offending in future. Do the Government have any proposals to deal with that large-scale problem?

Mr. Sackville: The hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that the medical services available in prison are inadequate, but it is not clear what new clause 12 would do to improve them. The courts can pass hospital orders. Prisons can use section 47 transfers to refer prisoners for mental treatment outside. The mechanisms are there; he is making a statement about how they are working.

Mr. Michael: It is clear that the Minister did not understand the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). As the Minister may by now have received more advice, I ask him to consider seriously the question that he was asked. He also said that the facilities in prison are inadequate. There is overwhelming research and other information from his

own Department to show that the situation in prison is seriously inadequate. Does he accept the seriousness of the problem?

Mr. Sackville: I believe that there may be room for improvement in prison medical services, but there is nothing in new clause 12 that would achieve it. Doctors are available to prison medical services and there are contracts between prisons and local community mental health services. All those services are in place. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) simply said that he believes that they are inadequate. We are dealing with an amendment about hospital direction, which provides further flexibility on how mental services can be offered.

Mr. Carlile: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Sackville: If I may continue, I was just going to deal with amendment No. 37, which was tabled by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It would prevent the hospital direction that is introduced by the Bill from being extended beyond people who are deemed to be psychopathic. We believe that it is reasonable that there should be an order-making power to extend the hospital direction beyond such people. There may often be cases where prisoners appear to be mentally ill and in need of treatment at the time of sentence, but cannot be deemed to be psychopathic. There may be many instances where they need treatment and, having been treated, need to be remanded back to prison. If someone was deemed sufficiently dangerous to be given a long sentence—perhaps a large importer of drugs, who merited a sentence of 10 years or more—but appeared to need mental treatment at the time of sentence, it would be wrong for the court not to have the flexibility to allow that treatment to be given, with the prisoner then being remanded back to prison. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that to do otherwise would mean that the public were not adequately protected from the behaviour of that individual.
I do not think that there is disagreement about the value of assessing prisoners before sentence or in the early stages of the process, but the best that I can say for the new clauses is that they provide a statutory framework for a process that is already happening apace in our system: the extension of psychiatric assessment at all stages of the sentencing process. I cannot advise the House to accept the new clauses.

Mr. Michael: The Minister's response was disappointing. Some of his points were simply wrong. I suggest that he looks again at the report of the Reed committee, and especially at the advice given by solicitors, who deal with their clients in the courts but are not directly involved in the Prison Service or the health service. The evidence from the Law Society about the experimental or pilot projects involving duty court psychiatrists or other such liaison schemes that are in operation was specific. The Minister was wrong to say that our new clauses would limit the involvement of medical practitioners to doctors. We specifically drafted one of the new clauses to allow the use of psychiatric nurses. That was one of the practicalities that we noted in considering amendments that might help the Bill.
When discussing such schemes, the Law Society said that one of the advantages reported to it was psychiatric reports that could be quickly identified and acted upon. That is an important requirement. As I said earlier, it is far too easy for the need for professional help or specialist advice to lead to delays in the criminal justice system. I have always thought that justice delayed is justice denied, and we have frequently tabled amendments to address that point of principle. Psychiatric reports are one of the advantages identified by solicitors who, in my experience, are not always identified with the avoidance of delay.
The Reed report praises the involvement of all relevant agencies, which assists co-operation and the speedy arrangement of services. It points out that the availability of local facilities can be made known to the court so that it has the knowledge with which to address the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) about courts targeting their sentencing decisions and knowing that their intentions can be followed through properly.
The solicitors also found that procedural difficulties can be overcome to avoid unnecessary and lengthy remands in custody. Remands in custody are not only bad in principle but extremely expensive, so in the general public interest that should surely be encouraged. Earlier, I mentioned the cost savings that have been identified in the available research, but the whole-hearted support of the Law Society for the nationwide provision of such schemes should be noted because it is argued on very positive grounds.
One of the other points in the Law Society's evidence is that boundary disputes between different authorities are a source of constant frustration for solicitors trying to ensure placement and service for mentally disordered offenders. The need for collaboration between probation officers, people involved in court and people involved in sentencing is clear, but that does not mean that we should just say to people in the health service authorities, psychiatric services and the criminal justice system, "It would be nice if you would talk to each other." It is the Government's responsibility to create the framework and to ensure that the two facilities deal with people who are at the point of interface—people who are in the criminal justice system but who perhaps should be in an institution that deals with mental health, or who are in prison and require psychiatric treatment. The Minister should accept our new clauses on the ground that they would help to create the right structures for that overlap between the health service and the criminal justice system.
6.30 pm
The Law Society also underlined the need for more reliable information on the need and potential demand for community services for mentally disordered offenders. I have referred to the Zito case and others where a failure to ensure that appropriate community-based services were available for people with psychiatric problems led to offences that were far more serious than those that first brought those individuals to the attention of the court.
The Law Society comments that many mentally disordered and vulnerable people are currently being cared for by their families without any contact with the psychiatric health or social services, and that without the provision of adequate support and services, those

arrangements are likely to break down. That is true. The breakdown of such arrangements can be dramatic and serious. I shall give a simple example. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends could give examples from their constituencies, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has professional experience that he could draw on.
A young man sought help from a mental hospital that was treating him because he felt that things were getting out of hand and that he might offend due to the development of his illness and the pressures on him. He asked for help and to be taken in. His mother said that she was seriously concerned that something would go wrong unless treatment was made available. It was known that he needed help, but he was not given it and the result was a victim, a violent offence, a criminal record and great expense to the public purse. There was little that was positive in the outcome, but a massive negative outcome, the cost of which was borne by the criminal justice system and, ultimately, by the public purse.
I understand—I do not think that the Minister acknowledged this adequately—the health service's fears about becoming an adjunct of the Prison Service. Personally, I have much sympathy for the combination order, which allows more flexible movement between one and the other. The answer is not greater separation, but greater co-operation. The basic principle, as put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) when we discussed these issues earlier, is that it is important that people with a mental illness of the sort that responds to treatment should receive that treatment wherever they are held.
There should be facilities for treating people and maintaining treatment programmes in prison, and for transferring people to hospitals for short-term and long-term treatment, whichever is the more suitable. We are talking not about additional costs, but about the appropriate targeting of treatment and the matching of the individual to the treatment that he needs.
In making that point, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport made the crucial point that, if facilities in prisons are poor, special hospitals will be chock-a-block with prison transfers, not because they provide a more appropriate environment, but simply because there is a lack of facilities in prisons. That point is surely relevant to some of the Bill. That would inhibit the special hospitals' ability to deliver treatment regimes for non-offenders. One way forward would be for the prison services to utilise special hospital skills in the prison environment through an outreach service, but the real answer is to improve the targeted service in prisons.
There is a pass-the-parcel approach and no real clarity of purpose—I suspect because prisons have difficulty coping with the bizarre and challenging behaviour of some mentally ill prisoners. Some offenders have profound personality disorders that are not treatable on a medical model. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) recently visited Ashworth hospital, which has separated that group out and deals with it differently. That expertise and approach is transferable from hospital to prison. It is important that special hospitals are not used as a dumping ground, but they will continue to be used in that way as long as they can be used in that way and as long as there are poor facilities in prisons.
On the other side of that equation, the Home Office and the Prison Service will not be under pressure to improve mental health facilities in prison. The attachment of the mental illness label to all sorts of behaviour is not helpful, particularly to people who are genuinely mentally ill. The key is proper assessment at the time of sentence and proper assessment of the right disposal, taking into consideration both the offence and the clinical judgment about the offender of people in the mental health service.
This should not be a bureaucratic issue of managing beds in the hospital system or prison cells in the prison system. That is why our new clauses both address the assessment, giving full information to the court and allowing it to be able to use properly the disposals available to it, including the disposals proposed elsewhere in the Bill, and to ensure that the facilities are available to people in prison. I have said on a number of occasions that there is a great cost to the public purse, in terms both of the criminal justice system and of the mental health system, in failing to address these issues adequately.
The Minister said that our new clauses would destroy local flexibility and—I quote him directly—that it would be "unhelpful to tie the hands" of people who can voluntarily make those arrangements at local level. This is a fine time for the Government to discover, suddenly, that it is a good thing to have local flexibility, and for a Minister to say that the Government do not want to tie the hands of people to do things for the public benefit at local level. Is the Minister saying that the requirement of a high standard set at a central level necessarily involves bureaucratic interference by Government Departments? The answer to that is yes under the Conservatives, but no if it is done properly.
These things must be done with sensitivity and balance. We should set the standards and then allow flexibility for local delivery of those standards, and for the courts to be able to take decisions on the basis of the right framework having been put in place. I underline again that flexibility on the use of psychiatric nurses—and not just doctors—is allowed, at least in the initial assessment, by the way in which we have approached this issue.
The Minister suggested that we should have concentrated on the remand element rather than on post conviction. I take his point about the identification of people who need mental treatment before the case has gone through. I commented on that in my earlier remarks, but we have concentrated particularly on the point that, if someone has been found guilty, the court, in deciding its disposal, should have a full analysis of the offender's condition, as well as knowledge of the offence. I remind the Minister that this is, after all, the Crime (Sentences) Bill: so it is sensible for us to concentrate on sentencing. It was the Government's choice that we should concentrate on sentencing; that is why our new clauses and my remarks in this short debate have concentrated on sentence, rather than on remand.
The Minister suggests that the outcome is uncertain—that it is not certain what the court is to do with the information made available to it. It is not prescribed, but that is not the same as its being uncertain. It is not prescribed in the sense of slot-machine justice, whereby a piece of information is fed in and a disposal pops out, although I know that some Ministers are enamoured of

that approach. We are trying to ensure that the court has the appropriate information to enable it to make the right decision—a decision that might, in certain circumstances, be tough, but which includes appropriate psychiatric treatment for the offender, whether through a hospital order, a combination order or a prison sentence. What is required is that the court uses the information made available to it to do the job that it is there to do—to exercise common sense in its application of the law. That is perfectly clear and not uncertain at all.
I also found it most odd that the Minister did not respond in detail to the serious intervention from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). During that exchange, the most the Minister would acknowledge was that there may be room for improvement in the services available in prison. I tell him that it is not conditional and that "may be" is not the right term—there is room for improvement in the psychiatric treatment available in prison.

Mr. George Howarth: There is room for a quantum leap.

Mr. Michael: As my hon. Friend says, there is room for a quantum leap of improvement in standards of psychiatric care in prisons. I would put it more strongly: there is a crying and desperate need for major improvements in prison psychiatric treatment and in the liaison between the criminal justice system, especially the Prison Service, and the national health service in respect of the treatment of mentally ill prisoners.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is simply not good enough for the Government to say that contracts are being entered into with individual psychiatrists and groups of psychiatrists to provide services in prison? Is he aware that the psychiatrists who provide services in many of the busier prisons say that under their contracts, which are part-time and limited, they are able only to stem the tide and deal with the most serious cases?

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point which, with his knowledge of the criminal justice system, he does with great authority. He confirms my suspicions that we are seeing the Elastoplast approach to mental health, just as we are seeing the Elastoplast approach to the health service and the criminal justice system in general. He makes the point effectively and I agree whole-heartedly with him.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken a great deal of common sense, which I applaud, but is he prepared to make a commitment on behalf of his party to make the massive expenditure that would be required to bring the treatment of mentally ill offenders up to the standard that he seeks?

Mr. Michael: I am not sure how long ago it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman wandered into the Chamber but, despite his compliment on the common sense of my remarks, I have to say that I am surprised that he claims to have been paying close attention to my


speech. I have already dealt explicitly with the matter he raises, twice in my opening speech and once in my current speech.
A great burden is placed on the public purse by, first, the failure properly to identify the need for psychiatric treatment and, secondly, the failure to give psychiatric treatment where it is needed, especially to those in prison. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to understand the point, so I shall repeat it slowly for his benefit: it is costing us an enormous amount of money to be ineffective, and much of that cost could be saved by better liaison, by better targeting of activity and by ensuring that the work of the Prison Service and the health service is properly co-ordinated and that each does its job properly. The expenditure is not additional, but comes from dealing with the waste of money that results from the ineffective identification of those who need help and the ineffective way of providing that help.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): rose—

Mr. Michael: It is such a clear and simple point that it requires the Home Secretary to come to the defence of his junior Ministers.

Mr. Howard: The junior Ministers are doing extremely well. What needs to be clarified is the novel approach to public expenditure commitments being advanced by the hon. Member. He knows perfectly well that the explanation—if that is the right word—that he has just given could be used to justify additional public spending on any subject under the sun. Has he cleared the words that he has just used with the shadow Chief Secretary or the shadow Chancellor?

Mr. Michael: That intervention demonstrates that it is inadvisable for the Home Secretary to wander into the Chamber, pick up on one sentence and try to criticise the Opposition. If he had paid attention to the whole of my speech, he would have heard me quoting evidence from his own Department about the money to be saved by proper identification and targeting. It is a pity that he does not appear to have read the research that he publishes.

Mr. Soley: Is not this the same Home Secretary who told the country that he will build a couple of dozen new prisons, without any regard to expense? It all falls on the taxpayer. That is another case of failure.

Mr. Michael: This is also the Home Secretary who has managed to cut £700 million from the funding available to the victims of violent crime. I do not think that we need any lessons from the abacus of the Home Secretary—our point is that he is wasting money. The money available within the Home Office, the criminal justice system and the health service is being wasted. That waste is not necessary and could be avoided by the sort of measures proposed in the new clauses.
I hope that the Home Secretary will take the trouble to read the whole of this debate in Hansard and not just a little bit of it; he will see how silly he looked making that intervention and asking a question that had already been adequately answered much earlier in the debate.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: Of course. I am delighted that the Home Secretary is coming back—more, more.

Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the very simple and specific question that I put to him? The formula that he used could be used to justify any increase in public spending on anything under the sun—has he cleared the words he used with the shadow Chancellor or the shadow Chief Secretary?

Mr. Michael: I am sure that what I said could, with the twisted logic of the Conservative party, be used to justify anything—but not under the tight financial control and management that the Chancellor of an incoming Labour Government after the general election will apply, not only to spending commitments, but to the effective use of the resources that are currently available. That is the point. The Home Secretary stands condemned in this debate of not being willing to listen to advice from his own Department and his own research on how he and the Secretary of State for Health could use the resources that are currently available to them to reduce the burden of psychiatric care, to reduce offending and reoffending, to reduce the commitment to prison building and to reduce the massive expense resulting from the Home Secretary's mismanagement of the criminal justice system.
It is not good enough for the Government to try to avoid the issue by saying, "We'll tell the health and prison services to get together and that will bring about the end required by the Opposition." That is what the junior Minister said would happen and, according to the Home Secretary and his junior Minister, it does not involve extra resources. Telling the services to get on with it does not cost a penny more, but Ministers now argue that requiring them to get on with it in the way that we propose—by providing a framework that will make it easier for them to do so and that will allow money to be saved—will somehow cost more. It is just as well that the Home Secretary became a lawyer and not an accountant—he would have been drummed out of that profession long ago on the strength of the false accounting that he has tried to bring to bear this evening. The right hon. and learned Gentleman stands condemned out of his own mouth for a spurious and silly intervention.
It is not enough for the Home Secretary and the Minister to say that people involved in psychiatric services and in the Prison Service should co-ordinate their activities more effectively. It is not enough to say that provision should be made available voluntarily in the courts. It is not happening apace, as the Minister said. If it is happening apace, it is at a pace of a snail. That is not good enough.
We have tabled constructive new clauses that would tackle a significant problem and which I seriously expected the Minister to welcome, in view of the comments that he made in Committee, which I quoted back at him earlier. I regret the fact that he did not


welcome our new clauses. Nevertheless, there may be enough Opposition Members—and, perhaps, Conservative Members, given that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said that there was much common sense and logic in what I said—to pass the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 297.

Division No. 35]
[6.49 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Allen, Graham
Denham, John


Alton, David
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dobson, Frank


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Donohoe, Brian H


Ashdown, Paddy
Dowd, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Ennis, Jeff


Battle, John
Etherington, Bill


Bayley, Hugh
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Beith, A J
Fatchett, Derek


Benn, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Berry, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Foster, Derek


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Boateng, Paul
Fraser, John


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
George, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gerard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Gilbert, Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Callaghan, Jim
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike


Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)
Hanson, David


Chidgey, David
Hardy, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harvey, Nick


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Alan (Stratfd-on-A)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cousins, Jim
Howells, Dr Kim


Cox, Tom
Hoyle, Doug


Cummings, John
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dalyell, Tam
Hutton, John


Darling, Alistair
Illsley, Eric


Davidson, Ian
Ingram, Adam





Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rendel, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Keen, Alan
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Sheldon, Robert


Llwyd, Elfyn
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Ian (Makerfld)
Soley, Clive


Macdonald, Calum
Spearing, Nigel


McFall, John
Spellar, John


McLeish, Henry
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


McNamara, Kevin
Steel, Sir David


MacShane, Denis
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stevenson, George


Madden, Max
Stott, Roger


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Strang, Dr Gavin


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Straw, Jack


Mandelson, Peter
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Meale, Alan
Thurnham, Peter


Michael, Alun
Timms, Stephen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Trickett, Jon


Milburn, Alan
Turner, Dennis


Miller, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Vaz, Keith


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Walker, Sir Harold


Morgan, Rhodri
Walley, Ms Joan


Morley, Elliot
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N


Mudie, George
Watson, Mike


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wilson, Brian


Olner, Bill
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Orme, Stanley
Worthington, Tony


Pearson, Ian
Wright, Dr Tony


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L
Ms Angela Eagle and


Pope, Greg
Mr. Joe Benton.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Ashby, David
Bates, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Batiste, Spencer


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bendall, Vivian






Beresford, Sir Paul
Gale, Roger


Biffen, John
Gallie, Phil


Body, Sir Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garnier, Edward


Booth, Hartley
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bright, Sir Graham
Gummer, John


Brooke, Peter
Hague, William


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Burns, Simon
Hannam, Sir John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Andrew


Butler, Peter
Harris, David


Butterfill, John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hawkins, Nick


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Hawksley, Warren


Carrington, Matthew
Hayes, Jerry


Carttiss, Michael
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Churchill, Mr
Heseltine, Michael


Clappison, James
Hicks, Sir Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Higgins, Sir Terence


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Coe, Sebastian
Horam, John


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Sir Peter


Congdon, David
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Cope, Sir John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunter, Andrew


Couchman, James
Hurd, Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jack, Michael


Curry, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan Smith, Iain
Key, Robert


Dunn, Bob
King, Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Kirkhope, Timothy


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Kynoch, George


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Norman


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fowler, Sir Norman
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
MacGregor, John


Freeman, Roger
MacKay, Andrew


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Fry, Sir Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick





McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madel, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Malone, Gerald
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mans, Keith
Soames, Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speed, Sir Keith


Marlow, Tony
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Spink, Dr Robert


Merchant, Piers
Spring, Richard


Mills, Iain
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Sir Roger
Stephen, Michael


Molyneaux, Sir James
Stem, Michael;


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Allan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Streeter, Gary


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Nelson, Anthony
Sweeney, Walter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Newton, Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Norris, Steve
Thomason, Roy


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ottaway, Richard
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Page Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Paice, James
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Tracey, Richard


Patten, John
Tredinnick, David


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Trotter, Neville


Peacock Mrs Elizabeth
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pickles, Eric
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, David
Viggers, Peter


Portillo, Michael
Walden, George


Powell, William (Corby)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Ward, John


Renton, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Rifkind, Malcolm
Watts, John


Robathan, Andrew
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilkinson, John


Rowe, Andrew
Willetts, David


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Wilshire, David


Sackville, Tom
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Scott, Sir Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Yeo, Tim


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Young, Sir George


Shephard, Mrs Gillian



Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shersby, Sir Michael
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Sims, Sir Roger
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 3

REQUIREMENT UPON THE COURT OF APPEAL TO ISSUE SENTENCING GUIDELINES

'(1) Without prejudice to any other power in that regard, it shall be the duty of the Court of Appeal to consider and review sentencing practice and policy and from time to time to issue guidelines in respect thereof.
(2) Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guideline issued under subsection (1) above.'.—[Mr. Straw.]



Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 4—Sentencing guidelines—

'.—(1) In disposing of any criminal appeal, the Court of Appeal may, without prejudice to any other power in that regard, pronounce an opinion on the sentence or other disposal which is appropriate in any similar case.
(2) Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guidance issued under such subsection (1) above.'.

New clause 5—Unduly lenient sentences (No. 1)—
'Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended by substituting for subsection (3) the following subsection—
(3) This Part of this Act applies to any case in which sentence is passed by the Crown Court.".'.

Mr. Straw: The new clauses seek to impose a duty on the Court of Appeal to lay down sentencing guidelines in respect of all the main offences in the criminal calendar, and to extend the power of the prosecution, through the Attorney-General, to appeal against a much wider range of sentences than is currently the case.
In a paper published a few years ago, entitled "Custody Reconsidered", for the Centre for Policy Studies, Professor Andrew Ashworth wrote:
People are right to expect consistency in sentencing, since consistency, together with predictability, lies at the heart of the rule of law.
However, he went on to state:
The present sentencing system fails to achieve a proper balance between flexibility and consistency.
Professor Ashworth's conclusion seems inescapable: the lack of consistency and the absence of proper machinery to enforce and monitor sentencing practice is one important reason why public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole is so low.
In the paper entitled, "Honesty, Consistency and Progression in Sentencing", which I published last March, I gave detailed figures that highlight the current inconsistency in sentencing between different courts. I provided two tables, one which examined the range of the use of custody by different tiers of the Crown court, and another which did similar work in respect of magistrates courts.
In Crown courts, there is significant variation in the proportion of defendants coming before Crown courts of the same level who are sentenced to immediate custody. For level 3 courts, the range varies from 38 per cent. at Woolwich Crown court, to 67 per cent. at Hereford Crown court, where the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is a recorder. His practice obviously belies his Liberal rhetoric. That has been my consistent experience of my friends at the Bar—the moment they sit on the Bench, the soft ones end up giving the longest sentences. The reverse is also true. That may explain the liberality of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on the Bench, although not in the House.
A similar range is apparent in respect of level 2 courts, where the proportion of defendants who are convicted and go into immediate custody varies from 40 per cent. in

Gloucester to 65 per cent. in Luton. The same applies to level 1 courts, where the range is from 42 per cent. in Bristol to 64 per cent. in Caernarfon, and a higher proportion at the Old Bailey, but I do not regard that as an equivalent court for the purpose of these comparisons.
There is an even wider range in magistrates courts. On average, 13 per cent. of defendants who appear before magistrates courts receive a sentence of immediate custody, but the range is huge. I refer to indictable offences triable summarily; I am not speaking of motoring offences. At one end of the range, at Staffordshire, Moorlands magistrates court, one in six defendants are given a sentence of immediate custody. At the other end, at Maidenhead magistrates court, one in 66 defendants receive a sentence of immediate custody. Try as I might, I can find no explanation for those differences.

Mr. Michael Stephen: I am sure that, like most of us, the hon. Gentleman believes in local justice and believes that magistrates are local people dispensing justice in their locality. How far does he believe that there should be discretion for local Benches to treat more seriously particular offences that might be prevalent in their area, and therefore to depart from national guidelines?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The same point was made, improbably, by the Secretary of State in an interview in "Constabulary Magazine", in favour of unfettered discretion by local Benches in magistrates courts. None of us could accept complete uniformity in sentencing. It would be odd if every court's sentencing practice was around the average. My concern is that the range is far too wide, and that the differences in practice appear to be informed not by any explicit local policy, but rather by custom and practice.
I shall give a specific example. Blackburn and Oldham are two similar industrial towns in the old county of Lancashire. They have similar social structures and similar rates of crime. A defendant at the magistrates court in Oldham has a one in 10 chance of receiving a sentence of immediate custody. A defendant at the magistrates court in Blackburn has a one in 20 chance of receiving such a sentence.
I do not know which sentencing policy has a greater impact on crime levels in those two towns. With regard to my own constituency, however, I know that because of major problems in the amount of feedback and guidance that magistrates courts are given, the policy of the court in Blackburn—and, I suspect, also in Oldham—is not really a policy, but the way in which the court has behaved traditionally, without any rational scrutiny of that behaviour.
Of course, I accept—this is one of the reasons why we want changes in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service operates—that if there is a particular problem in an area, the Bench and prosecutors are right to take it seriously and, for example, to issue exemplary sentences as a deterrent against further wrongdoing.
The figures that I have given are for comparisons between courts. Another set of figures reveals inconsistency of a different kind. The public currently expect the court's attitude to offending to equate to their own experience at home, at school or in the workplace.
In each of those environments, the sanction for misbehaviour takes account not only of the immediate offence, but of the past record of the miscreant. That is part of people's natural instinct about what is just and sensible. That is explicitly written into employment law where, save for grave offences, employees are entitled to a series of warnings before they can be dismissed.
Apart from the short-lived aberration of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, such an idea of progression in sentencing, taking account of previous offending behaviour, has long been enshrined as a principle of sentencing in the British courts. In any court on any day, one will hear defence counsel arguing in mitigation for a last chance for a defendant to avoid a custodial sentence. Equally often, in imposing a non-custodial sentence, the Bench will issue a dire warning that further offending will lead to a prison sentence.
However, the idea of proper progression, which I believe is accepted across the House, is not consistently translated into sentencing practice. My paper, like the White Paper, gave examples of what on average may happen to defendants on a first, second or third conviction. The picture painted by those figures can be described only as bizarre and as one that is unlikely to enhance public confidence in the sentencing system.
Let me give some examples that I quoted in my paper. I asked the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), for figures of the proportion of defendants aged 21 or more who had received convictions for domestic burglary and, separately, for drug dealing, and who received sentences of immediate custody, and what the length of the average sentence was. It is true that for domestic burglary and drug dealing, an increasing proportion of defendants received a custodial sentence at the second and third offence, but it is odd that for domestic burglary, the sentence stayed level at 15 months, whereas for drug dealing in class A drugs, the sentence went down from 32 months at the first conviction to 30 months at the third conviction. Those figures do not enhance confidence in our sentencing system.

Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that both the examples that he has cited will be dealt with by the minimum mandatory sentencing provisions in the Bill? Will he specifically deny that he has given any private assurances to senior members of the judiciary that, if elected, Labour would not implement the Bill's mandatory sentencing proposals?

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point in a moment. The issue of a drug dealer or domestic burglar who is convicted for a third time is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. However, such provisions—whatever their merits—are not an alternative to effective guidelines from the Court of Appeal. The proposals affect sentences at a third conviction in only two specific areas of offence within the criminal calendar.
As to the Home Secretary's second question, I have not given any such undertakings—either in private or in public. He will have to wait for my speech on Third Reading—we want to see the Bill's final form—to hear our definitive decisions about its proposals. I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted, by implication, that the Labour party will form a Government after the election.
As we know from reports in yesterday's newspapers, he has already accepted that fact and is spending more time preening himself for election as Leader of the Opposition than doing his job as Secretary of State.
As hon. Members know, I was not a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill, but I have read the Hansard record of debates. I was almost as impressed by the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton in Committee as by the brilliant interventions of my colleagues. The hon. and learned Gentleman supported our amendments and poured vitriol on the ill-thought-through provisions in the Bill so often that I think he must be halfway to defecting to new Labour. He brought to his observations his experience not only as a distinguished parliamentarian but as a recorder of the Crown court. We know that the court in which he sits has a reputation for much softer sentences than the court of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. On at least three occasions, the hon. and learned Gentleman commented that the Bill's provisions
would have been unnecessary if the court had laid down guidelines about minimum sentences".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 49.]
He added:
it would have been far better if, many years ago, judges had got to grips with their powers and set out guidelines to introduce the type of sentence that we are having to lay down in statute".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 November 1996; c. 104.]
I refer to the question that the Home Secretary asked a moment ago. We shall discuss separately the Bill's so-called minimum sentence provisions, but they will cover only a limited number of cases and criminal offenders—those affected by clause 1, convicted for a second time of a listed offence that already carries life as a maximum sentence; and those affected by clauses 2 and 3, convicted for a third time of offences of domestic burglary or trafficking in class A drugs. The vast range of offences and offenders will be unaffected. Therefore, the need for better machinery to secure consistency and progression will remain.
The achievement of that aim has actively exercised the House for at least a decade. In its 1986 White Paper on criminal justice, the Government proposed giving statutory form to the Judicial Studies Board's function of publishing the Court of Appeal's sentencing guidelines in a more coherent and accessible form. However, they dropped that idea in favour of a limited right of appeal against unduly lenient sentences by the Attorney-General.
When the ill-fated 1991 Act was before the House, one of our main criticisms of the Bill was that it failed to deal with "unacceptable discrepancies in sentencing"—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said at the time. We advanced proposals for a sentencing council to achieve greater consistency in sentencing. It is a measure of how far the Government have moved in six short years that, at the time, our proposal was condemned out of hand by Ministers and voted down by Government Members—including the present Home Secretary—on the risible grounds that it would produce the "dead hand of conformity" and
end up like the experience in the United States."—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 232.]


The Conservative party's campaign guide went much further and said that our proposals would have denied the courts
the discretion they need if they are to deal adequately with the wide variety of criminal acts that come before them".
It added that our position—which was in favour of more consistency—illustrated Labour's
traditional mistrust of the judiciary and provides Labour with an institution to shackle them to a rigid penal system.
I am glad that the Home Secretary can see the joke. I hope that when he responds to the debate, he will apologise for the position that he took in 1991. The truth is that, if our proposals for proper machinery on sentencing guidance had been accepted—they were widely supported at the time—we would not now need some of the provisions in the Bill.
Despite Ministers' complacency about sentencing practice at the time, the Court of Appeal could—and we believe should—have been more proactive in its development of sentencing guidance. Sentencers have available much excellent work from the Judicial Studies Board, Thomas's "Current Sentencing Practice", and a few guideline judgments from the Court of Appeal—notably on rape. However, Professor Ashworth was correct to criticise the Court of Appeal in 1992 for the
manifest abdication of its role in giving guidance for the lower courts.
He said that that
suggests that the ideal partnership between legislature and judiciary, implicit in the White Paper of 1990, is likely to be realised slowly, if at all".
He added for good measure that most of the Court of Appeal's decisions on domestic burglary were
a veritable wasteland in terms of guidance".
Little has happened in the intervening period. Mr. Ralph Henham, senior lecturer in law at Nottingham Trent university, in a 1995 paper on sentencing policy for the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, commented on
the apparent failure of the Court of Appeal to consistently advert to other sentencing decisions in the course of developing sentencing principles, thus hindering the process by creating problems of interpretation. In addition, there is a tendency for the Court of Appeal to concentrate on the immediate case without questioning the general principles behind cases of that type or their inter-relationship with other types of cases thus creating a lack of coherence and direction in the development of sentencing principles.
That is strong criticism and I am sorry that the Court of Appeal has not taken it on board properly.
As I said, the alternative proposed by the Government in their 1986 White Paper was for the Attorney-General to have a limited right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. That provision became law in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. In most other jurisdictions—including common law jurisdictions—the prosecution has long had a much more active role in sentencing. The notion has always raised profound anxiety in many quarters. I suspect that we have been held back in many ways by our history. Indeed, many ingrained assumptions of English common lawyers about rules of evidence and sentencing date back to the last century, when many property offences were capital crimes, and when the defendant was not allowed to give

evidence in his own defence. There was no general defence appeal against conviction or overly severe sentences until 1907.
Anxiety about the possibility of injustice and of political influence in appeals led my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook to oppose the right of the Attorney-General to make an appeal under the 1988 Act. Significantly, in the same debate he expressed qualified support for a much more comprehensive scheme, whereby the prosecution could suggest sentences to the court. In the event, the anxieties of many about the development were not borne out and we supported measures to strengthen the arrangements in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Today, the Attorney-General is able to appeal as "unduly lenient" any offence triable on indictment only, but just a limited number triable either way. However, a large number of offences tried in the Crown court, and any offence tried in the magistrates courts, are excluded. New clause 5 seeks to extend the power of the Attorney-General to appeal against any conviction that arises in the Crown court.
I should add—this does not form part of the formal propositions of the debate, so we should not take an immediate decision about it—that although there are strong, practical difficulties in extending that principle to magistrates courts, I believe that, in principle, the prospect should be considered. Under current law, there is no possibility of the Attorney-General appealing against an unduly lenient sentence for domestic burglary—a subject that has correctly exercised the Home Secretary—or for quite a number of offences of violence.
7.30 pm
The Government were wrong in 1986 to see a more active role on guidance by the Court of Appeal and a right of appeal by the Attorney-General as alternatives. In our view, one should buttress the other. In its guidance role, the Court of Appeal should, as many have proposed, work through the criminal calendar and provide clear guidance on each of the main offences. It should publish such guidance in draft, encourage informed professional and public debate on it and then promulgate it.
Some judges and practitioners have said that that would be difficult; that domestic burglary, for example, covers a wide range of actions and of culpability. So it does, but that does not mean that the range is incapable of analysis and categorisation. After all, rape also covers a wide range of culpability, and on that the Court of Appeal has issued proper guidance.
In addition to the promulgation of guidance, much improved arrangements need to be put in hand to enhance the memory of the criminal justice system. I have often heard magistrates complain that they are effectively sentencing people in the dark, with little or no systematic feedback on the effect of their sentencing decisions.
My final point is about Scotland. The Scottish legal system is different and it is entirely right that its development should be determined by what is right for Scotland, but too often we ignore better practice there, for example on delays in getting cases to court. The White Paper on crime and punishment in Scotland, Cm 3302, has two proposals in chapter 8 that are fully consistent with our new clauses for England and Wales. In 1995,


the appeal court in Scotland, as the White Paper pointed out, was given a power to lay down sentencing guidelines, which I understand has now been activated.
In paragraph 8.23, the Government proposed to extend to the prosecution the right of appeal in all summary cases. I am aware that the definition of "summary" is different from that in England, but it is very much wider than in cases that simply end up in the Crown court. That intention has now been put into effect by a negative statutory instrument, which was approved without any Division in the House.
Those are persuasive examples of why such provision should be made in England and Wales. We need a criminal justice system that has more memory, that has greater and more effective progression, and one that above all ensures greater consistency. When practitioners express concern that the public do not understand how the courts operate, they should bear it in mind that what the public inevitably latch on to is not the average practice in sentencing, but the aberrant practices in sentencing, which too often excite—quite rightly—great public concern, and about which very little can be done.
The Attorney-General has an important role to play, which we wish to see extended, but we believe that there is an overwhelming case for the Court of Appeal to extend its role within the framework that Parliament has laid down for sentencing and to establish effective sentencing guidelines and then ensure that they are properly monitored and put into practice.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The issue is whether the Court of Appeal, criminal division, should have a statutory obligation to promulgate sentencing guidelines for the whole calendar of cases coming before the Crown courts.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was, perhaps, less than generous to the Court of Appeal in his criticism of the guidelines that it has given hitherto. It is instructive to spend, as some of us have occasionally, a day, or nearly a day, sitting in one of the courts of the Court of Appeal, criminal division, and hear the throughput of cases. First, they work under considerable pressure. It is quite impossible for them to consider each case as a guideline case.
Secondly, the courts work extremely fast. In most appeals against sentence, they are fully apprised of the facts of the case before the appeal is heard and are usually able to put propositions to counsel appearing for an appellant at the beginning of the hearing and come to a rapid conclusion. Thirdly, in most of the cases that they hear, the submissions that are put before them are subjective rather than objective. Many sentence appeals turn on subjective issues arising from the circumstances of the offender perhaps more than from the circumstances of the offence.
The Court of Appeal, under its current procedure, is not really equipped by the nature of its hearings to deal with the issue of guidelines on every offence in every category that comes before the Crown court. It is a demand-led place. It has recognised that its role is to issue guidelines. I suggest to the House that it has done so conscientiously on a very wide range of issues. Drug offences are extremely difficult for judges and, indeed, for defence counsel, to deal with because they cover such a huge range. For example, the supplying of a class B drug can range from offences that are easy to sentence—the

biggest—to those that are far less easy to sentence, those near the smallest—supply to a group of friends, supply among a group of students in a university, supply in a club.
Those are offences that courts find very difficult to sentence, and it is helpful to courts throughout the country that the Court of Appeal has issued widespread and detailed guidelines on them. Guidelines have been issued on sexual offences, on offences involving the use of arms and on a wide range of other offences coming before the courts.
I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn that the Court of Appeal could issue guidelines on the full calendar coming before the criminal courts. In my view it would be desirable that it did so. My view is that the Court of Appeal, provided that it is given the resources, and that is a real issue, would welcome the opportunity to set out in written form, after due debate, each year or periodically, the range that one could expect given certain facts.
Before we could reasonably expect the Court of Appeal to do that, however, having regard to its very considerable work load, it would be necessary to ensure that the assistance that is now given to the Court of Appeal in the form of professional, clerical additions was expanded. Young lawyers are now being appointed to assist the Court of Appeal in preparing cases. The Government would also have to consider creating an increased number of Lords Justices to enable this work to be done. If the Court of Appeal was to promulgate a volume of guidelines periodically, we could not reasonably expect it to do so in its spare time, for it does not have any spare time at present.
Lord Taylor, the last Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, his predecessor, and, of course, Lord Bingham, the present Lord Chief Justice, have shown total willingness to issue guidelines in appropriate cases, and if this new duty were imposed on them by Parliament, they would take it on themselves and carry it out with great efficiency, but they would have to be given the resources to do so.
The more orderly promulgation of such guidelines by the Court of Appeal would make a daily contribution to consistency in sentencing in courts around the country. However, I hope that we all agree that sentencing should never be uniform—that reflects the point that was made earlier about regional variations in sentencing. The stealing of sheep in Montgomeryshire is an extremely serious offence, and one would expect it to be severely punished.

Mr. Straw: It obviously is.

Mr. Carlile: It is, as the hon. Gentleman said. I have the honour to be the honorary recorder of Hereford, which has a tough record on sentencing. It is an orderly city because offences are dealt with efficiently—I am referring not to my conduct, but to that of the judges who sit there more regularly. The sentences that are passed in Hereford reflect the needs of that city. Whether in Hereford,


Blackburn, Oldham or Montgomeryshire, it is important to allow variation in sentencing to reflect local circumstances.

Mr. Straw: Is there a connection between the tough sentences passed by the Crown court in Hereford and the orderly conduct of its citizens?

Mr. Carlile: I would not make so bold as to answer that question with a yes. However, I would hazard a guess that if people in a small city such as Hereford—it is much easier in a small city—or in a city such as Chester, which I know extremely well because I practised law there for many years, know that the judges before whom they could appear are likely to be pretty tough on, for example, house burglary, the chances are that they will either do less house burglary or will go and do it in Blackburn. I hope that they will not take the latter approach, but it is a possibility and it argues for greater consistency in sentencing while retaining variation between areas.
The Attorney-General has the power to refer sentences to the Court of Appeal when he is advised or perceives that they are unduly lenient. Many of us were opposed to the introduction of that power. I am not too proud to say that I was wrong to oppose it when it was introduced, because it has worked well. I am pleased to see the Attorney-General in his seat. He has exercised that power more frequently in recent years than in the past. It has made a contribution to the production of guideline cases. I believe that I am right in saying that more guidelines have emerged from Attorney-General's references than from any other category of cases that one could define.
I hope that we shall continue to use Attorney-General's references constructively. There is no logic for allowing an Attorney-General's reference in one category of case coming before the Crown court but not in another. I would hesitate for a long time before extending that power to magistrates courts, as I fear that it would clog up the courts and would merely provide jobs for lawyers, which is usually perceived—in the House at least—as a bad thing.
There is a good deal of sense in allowing the Attorney-General to exercise his discretion on advice and in appropriate circumstances in all cases before the Crown courts. I am sure that that jurisdiction would not be exercised over-generously by any Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is as subject to criticism by the Court of Appeal as anyone else, and wasteful applications to that court are dealt with robustly. It is a constructive suggestion, and I hope that the Home Secretary will support it.

Mr. Stephen: I shall not be able to support new clauses 3, 4 and 5 in the Division Lobby. I have a particular interest in new clause 5. I had thought long before 1988 that we had an extraordinary position in this country whereby, if a criminal considered his sentence too harsh he could appeal, but if it was generally considered to be too lenient, the public could do nothing about it. That caused a great deal of public disquiet and brought the law itself into disrespect among our constituents.
In 1987, I wrote a paper, which was published by the Bow Group, in which I proposed that the Attorney-General should have power to appeal against

over-lenient sentences. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was Home Secretary, and I had a great deal of correspondence with the then Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I received a number of letters from the Home Office—I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend read them, but he certainly signed them—which contained some absurd reasons why my suggestion should not be implemented.
7.45 pm
One of the reasons given was that it would be wrong to allow an appeal against an over-lenient sentence because the Court of Appeal would not have heard the evidence in the court below. I responded that that was precisely what the courts did every day when asked to decide appeals by defendants who thought their sentences too heavy.
The next Home Office argument was that it would be wrong to impose double jeopardy on the defendant, to which I responded that the concept of double jeopardy is usually understood to apply to people who have not been convicted of any crime and who, until they are convicted, must be given the benefit of the doubt. I pointed out to the Home Office scribe that here we were dealing with people who had actually been convicted of crime. If people do not want to be subjected to judicial process, the remedy is not to commit crime.
The Home Office eventually agreed that my proposal should be implemented, but said, "Yes, let us give the Court of Appeal power to review those cases upon the application of the Attorney-General, but we think it would be wrong to give it power to change the sentence that the court below had imposed." I responded that it was adding insult to injury to tell the victim of a crime or his family that the defendant had been too leniently punished, but nothing could be done about it. The Home Office eventually agreed that that too was not a sustainable argument.
The Home Secretary of the day agreed in Standing Committee to what are now sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I recall that the Labour party was opposed to those provisions. The Liberals also opposed them, but the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) had the grace to say today that he had been wrong, and I suppose that a sinner who repenteth is deserving of praise.
When I wrote to the Home Secretary of the day, I wanted all cases to be subject to the right of the Attorney-General to appeal. However, I was persuaded that the power should be restricted to more serious cases, because it would increase pressure on the Court of Appeal—which is a very busy tribunal, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has said—and would also increase the cost to the public. I felt that the power could be justified only in more serious cases, and should not therefore apply to magistrates courts.
When dealing with sentences, we are not, as I have said, dealing with double jeopardy properly so called. Nevertheless, it is desirable, once sentence has been passed, for an offender and his family to know exactly what sentence he will have to serve. Unless a case is serious, it should not, therefore, be subject to a right of appeal.
I am opposed to new clause 5. My proposal in 1987 was that, as an appeal against a sentence passed by a Crown court is a serious matter, the decision should be made only by the Attorney-General and his colleague, the Solicitor-General, personally. As those two Law Officers already have a considerable work load, it would not be right to expand the category of cases too widely so that they became over-burdened and perhaps made mistakes. We all make mistakes, but the more over-burdened we are, the more likely that is. In any event, new clause 5 is not necessary because the 1988 Act already contains the power by statutory instrument to widen the category of cases to which the right of appeal applies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who I am glad to see in his place, has already exercised that power on a number of occasions.
With regard to new clauses 3 and 4, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that we can apply some computerised formula that will produce exactly the right sentence every time. Each case is different. The circumstances of each offence are different and each offender is different. The court has to consider both the offence and the offender in deciding upon the right sentence. The criminal appeal law reports are full of guidance which the Court of Appeal is handing down every day to the lower courts. In addition, there are sentencing conferences and other extrajudicial methods by which the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues can give guidance to the lower courts.
Having attended law school in America, I would caution the House against the use of law clerks, and I recall that a distinguished American lawyer publicly cautioned us against it only a few days ago. As the work load becomes heavier, the delegation to the law clerks tends to increase and, although they are bright young men and women, they are not the experienced judges who sit in the Court of Appeal and whose judgment is expected to be applied to each individual case.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned the role of the prosecution in the criminal process. When I was at the Bar I found it unsatisfactory. I would listen to the defence counsel—sometimes I would be the defence counsel—pointing out to the court that the defendant was a very good son, who looked after his mother very well and did errands for the old lady round the corner and that it was quite out of character that he smashed a glass and thrust it into the face of his unfortunate victim.
When I sat down, expecting as a result of my orations a lenient sentence for my client—which was sometimes the case and sometimes not—I often felt uneasy that the prosecuting counsel sat mute.It was his duty only to draw the attention of the court in fairly bland and factual terms to the defendant's criminal record. He did not argue that the offence and the offender required a more severe sentence than the defence counsel had argued.
It is often said that judges are not influenced by speeches in mitigation. If that is so, the legal aid fund is wasting a great deal of public money. I do not agree. In some cases the court is influenced by the speech in mitigation and there are circumstances in which a prosecuting counsel—who has that right—should point out to the court that the defendant deserves not a more lenient sentence but a more severe one. If that were the case, perhaps the courts of first instance would make fewer mistakes.
Finally, the hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned the need for courts to be as fully informed as possible before passing sentence. Ten years ago, we could not do much about that, but now, because of the availability of information technology, we have the solution at hand.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has caused a number of studies to be made on the use of information technology in the courts, and so has the Lord Chancellor, but we still have a long way to go. I look forward to the day—not very far hence—when a terminal will be available so that the judge and the clerk to the magistrates will be able to access a database giving full details of the criminal history of the defendant before them—not just the criminal record, but the way in which that individual has responded to the treatment that the criminal justice system has seen fit to impose on him. With the investment of a certain amount of money—of course, nothing is free—it should be possible to have such a system in operation in our courts within the next five or six years.
For those reasons, I oppose new clauses 3, 4 and 5.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I support new clause 3 in the name of my hon. Friends. I believe that the Court of Appeal should review sentencing practice and from time to time issue guidelines. In that respect, I return to a subject that I have often raised in the House—the treatment of children by our courts and the sentences handed down to the people who abuse them.
About two months ago a case was heard at Bristol Crown court concerning the abuse of seven children by their parents. A report of the case stated:
It was a case of Dickensian deprivation and squalor: hungry children bound and gagged, punched, beaten with belts and sticks, made to take cold showers and sleep in a dark attic on urine-soaked beds … It went on for 11 years.
The jury was told that while all that was taking place, the parents dressed and ate very well indeed.
Just as shocking to many of those who attended the court was the reaction of Judge Lester Boothman. The report continued:
Although he said the beatings were serious enough to warrant a prison sentence, he added that they amounted to no more than excessively violent punishment, that the physical injuries were not severe and that 20 years ago 'It may be that nobody would have raised an eyebrow.'
What a thing to say. He gave the man, who cannot be named to protect the children's identity, a sentence of just 15 months. Of course he was released fairly soon afterwards as he had already served seven months on remand.
The judge passed that sentence
despite hearing psychiatric reports that three of the children may never recover from the emotional damage caused by their prolonged suffering and following a catalogue of independent evidence from neighbours, teachers and doctors about the children's ill treatment and their injuries.
The three eldest children gave evidence that they had been regularly beaten and assaulted. In one incident, one was punished because he had accidentally broken a glass. His hands were tied in front of him with his father's dressing gown cord and a gag was placed in his mouth to stop him crying out as he was beaten. His brother was told to hold his feet so that he would not move and when he refused he was given similar treatment.
Although the judge said that the offences were "so serious" as to merit a prison sentence and that to do otherwise would "send a wrong message", he said that he had been satisfied that there was
always a good reason for the punishment.
He said:
It may not have seemed a good reason for the child concerned at the time, but I am satisfied that this is not a case that someone uses violence just simply for the sake of it.
The House has spent many hours examining criminal justice Bills and moving amendments to improve the way in which children give evidence in court. Although we have done a great deal, we still have not got it right. When a judge can pass such a sentence for that type of crime, it is clear that we have a long way to go to provide justice for our children.
I was so incensed by that case that I wrote to the Attorney-General—I am very pleased to see him in the Chamber tonight, as I know that he has a great concern for children—because I thought that I would get a sympathetic hearing from him. I received a reply from him, in which he said:
I received a full report from the Director of Public Prosecutions on the proceedings. I considered the matter very carefully, as did the Solicitor-General, and it is my opinion that this is an unduly lenient sentence and accordingly I have referred the case to the Court of Appeal, for the Court to consider the matter.
Thank you for drawing this case to my attention.
It should not be necessary for the likes of me to draw the case to the attention of the Attorney-General, so that he can take action, because courts should pass proper sentences. Everyone who is concerned about the mental and physical abuse that is meted out to far too many of our children should be concerned that our courts still dish out 15-month sentences. Something is very wrong with the system. I am convinced that we could do much better in providing justice to our children if the Court of Appeal were to issue further guidelines on sentencing practice and if such cases were examined in far more detail than, obviously, they have been.

8 pm

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who has identified a terrible case. It is difficult to know to what extent we can improve the system by referring to the occasional terrible case; we must deal with the overwhelming majority of cases.
This debate, in its very low-key and reasonable terms, has caused a change of heart in many hon. Members. Not only the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has changed his view about lenient sentences being referred to the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General, because I, too, have had a change of heart. There seems to have been a change of heart on tougher sentences also among Labour Members. The difference is that, whereas the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and I have changed our views on lenient sentences after having observed that no great harm and some considerable benefit seems to have come from the measure, the Opposition have changed their view because of the nearness of the general election and the necessity of giving the electorate the impression that they are

tougher on sentences than—after many months of their opposition on matters of law and crime—the electorate, and certainly Conservative Members, believe that they are.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery made a brilliant speech in defence of the Court of Appeal, to which I hope that he will soon be elevated—no doubt to adorn the judiciary. If he does so, it may well be that a little more sense will be shown by that body than it has sometimes shown. He sits in Wales and the Borders—where men are men and sheep are nervous—and perhaps those who steal sheep are nervous when they appear in his court. However, I think that he is wrong in suggesting that there should be an extension of the power to refer lenient sentences.
Although the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery may go to the Court of Appeal, he will never be Attorney-General. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which we can inflict on an Attorney-General—even one who is backed up by the excellence of the current Solicitor-General—the burden of each year examining hundreds if not many hundreds of cases to determine whether they should be referred to the Court of Appeal. It is simply not possible. Once the power is extended to civil servants and other individuals, who may or may not have had any direct experience of our courts, we would be entering the stratosphere, which would be undesirable.
I am sure that the reason why it would be utterly and completely wrong to pass new clause 5 is that it is totally impractical to expect the Attorney-General to become involved in many more cases. It is a source of wonder to me that he gets through as many cases as he does and still answers summonses to the Chamber to appear on the Treasury Bench when legal matters arise. I pay him the fullest compliments. As he knows, I have enormous respect for him, particularly in the way in which he survived the scurrilous and wrong criticisms made of him in Scott. That concludes my comments on new clause 5, although I should be interested to hear how my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or my right hon. Friend the Minister respond to them.
On the fundamental matter of guidelines, I again take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. There was no real problem preventing the Court of Appeal from issuing more guidelines than it has done. There is no reason why a Court of Appeal should not have said that only in exceptional circumstances should a professional burglar who has committed three offences escape with a prison sentence of less than three years.
There is no reason why, many years ago, a Court of Appeal should not have said that drug pushing and drug trafficking is such a corrupting and terrible influence upon children in our society that someone who is a professional and has been convicted three times—although he will have been very unlucky to have been caught and convicted if he had offended only three times, as most of those professionals have done it hundreds of times—should only in exceptional circumstances expect a sentence of less than seven years.
I do not know why the Court of Appeal should not have said—it is not terribly complicated—that if someone has raped once and then rapes again, he should be removed from society until it is safe to return him to society, and that the only way in which we can protect society is by a


life sentence. That would not have involved the Court of Appeal in too much heartache or consumed too much time, but it never did so. Because the Court of Appeal never did so, we have been forced to make these recommendations for minimum sentences, which is the heart and soul of the Bill. I regret that it has been necessary.
It has been made clear that I sit as a recorder, and so I have enormous respect for the judiciary. I do not want Parliament or, less still, the Executive to replace judges in judgments on legal affairs. I should not like to see that happen, but it is inevitable. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and I attend, as recorders, sentencing seminars. Time after time, in the dozen or so cases in our exercises, we go through the sentencing process and hear the sentence imposed by the Crown court. We then hear what the Court of Appeal has done to the sentence that has been passed, and we are left feeling that something is wrong with the Court of Appeal and that it does not act in tune with the feelings of the overwhelming majority of people—to whom recorders are closer, and to whom magistrates are sometimes very much closer.
Ordinary judges need support. Those of us who sit as judges and agonise when we read social inquiry reports and hear powerful mitigation presented by counsel, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel—

Mr. Stephen: Shoreham.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sorry; my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen)—although Arundel is not too far away. It is very difficult to harden oneself and to say that the appropriate sentence is such and such and not the lighter sentence that has been urged upon us. Judges are human. They are subjected to such pressures and respond to them and try to resist the pressures of the people outside the court who have not heard the circumstances of the case.
The result is that we have been encouraging burglars, drug traffickers and even the most violent and serious offenders—rapists and others—by the inadequacy of the sentences that have been passed. With 60 per cent. of seven-time burglars in magistrates courts and 30 per cent. in Crown courts not even being given a prison sentence, something serious has gone wrong with the system. Not only does it not reflect the wishes of the people, it does not protect them, because there is no deterrence in a system in which offenders are not detected. If they are detected they are not convicted. Those who are not convicted are not sentenced and those who are sentenced do not receive an appropriate sentence.
That is why we cannot have second thoughts about the Bill and go back to arguing about what would have happened if only the Court of Appeal had issued guidelines many years ago. It did not and there is no going back. There is too much crime and we have to protect society by removing from circulation for longer those who persistently commit crime in a professional way. We must also lay down proper deterrents, so that criminals know that sentences will be substantial if they are caught and convicted. That will help to reduce crime and protect society. That is why we have the Bill. It is no use, in my respectful submission, going along with new clauses 3 and 4, or even new clause 5. I shall therefore certainly support the Government in opposing them.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I shall speak briefly in support of new clause 3, referring to a

constituency case that is relevant to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). As he said, the new clause would place a duty on the Court of Appeal to consider and review sentencing practice.
Having sat here for some time, I am conscious that I am in a small minority of non-lawyers tonight. I speak solely as a constituency Member of Parliament. I do not find the time to do my full-time job as a constituency Member of Parliament. I am full of admiration for my hon. Friends and others who are able to practise at the Bar here, there and everywhere. I accept that they bring relevant experience to this place, but it is beyond me how they find the time to do their job as Members of Parliament.
I am concerned that constituents frequently come to me believing that a court has not acted appropriately in a particular case. Some elements of the Bill have some merit in addressing that problem. There is also strong merit in the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn about regular reviews of sentencing practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) brought us down to earth with reference to a specific case. She rightly felt that the court had dealt with the circumstances inappropriately. I should like to refer to a constituency case that has caused me particular concern. It raises questions about how, over a number of years, the justice system has impacted on one individual, who eventually took the life of the daughter of one of my constituents.
8.15 pm
Last September, I was contacted by my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Wickenden from Middlestown in Wakefield, with regard to the tragic circumstances of the death of their 22-year-old daughter Julia in 1994. Julia was a fourth-year medical student in Liverpool who was killed while cycling in Wavertree, Liverpool. The court heard that she was, as the press report said,
tossed through the air like a rag doll and never regained consciousness.
A 22-year-old man from Wavertree was convicted of causing her death by dangerous driving. He was gaoled for seven years. The court heard that he had been found guilty of driving while disqualified on 13 occasions and had convictions for reckless and dangerous driving. He had also never passed a driving test.
In September last year, after the trial had been reported in the press, Mr. and Mrs. Wickenden received a letter from the son of a woman whom the same man had killed while driving a stolen car in November 1990. He had received a 12-month probation sentence for that offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn referred to the relevant issue of past records. Through the efforts of Mr. Wickenden, I have found out that the court service has confirmed that, at the time of the sentence in respect of Julia Wickenden, the judge had no knowledge of the previous conviction. The Home Secretary, whom I am pleased to see here, may have been told about the case by his Minister of State, to whom Mr. Wickenden wrote last year with his concerns. Mr. Wickenden sent me a letter on 16 November last year, which said:
I refer to the letter I received today from David Maclean MP written as a reply to my letter written to Michael Howard on 29 September. The points made in this letter fail to address the questions that were put in my letter to Michael Howard.


He went on to say:
I am appalled to find that someone can be banned from driving on 13 separate occasions (the ones he was caught on) then continue to do the same thing, that is, to drive without any form of licence (and obviously insurance) with no supervision or training. To also drive continuously in a careless and reckless manner over a period of six years. During this period of driving he caused the death of a lady for which a sentence of one years probation was given.
It is because this person was not deterred from this persistent unlawful and anti social behaviour that he went on to exhibit exactly the same contempt for the laws of the country and take the life of our daughter. It could have been anyone's life … It is because I do not wish to see a repeat of this situation and others similar to it, that I am appealing for you to consider making changes now! If the legal system had possessed the powers and directions that I feel it needs, then my daughter would have stood a far better chance of becoming the doctor she had so wanted to be.
That letter makes my point. The Home Secretary will understand—I appreciate that he has listened carefully—that the family does not believe that the Government have treated the case seriously in the responses given by the Minister of State, who is also here tonight.
I repeat the facts. A 22-year-old man had 13 separate convictions for driving while disqualified, together with convictions for reckless and dangerous driving, and had previously caused a death. Why was he at liberty to cause the death of Julia Wickenden? We need to act on such gross injustices. New clause 3 offers some hope. If the Home Secretary refutes that, I should be interested to hear what he can offer those parents on the circumstances that caused the death of their daughter.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I intend to follow very closely the theme of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
For a number of years, I have had the honour of being a patron of the charity RoadPeace, which is active in giving support to families and victims of road tragedies. I am careful not to use the term "road accidents" because it implies that circumstances could not have been helped. Tragedies such as the one to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred would never have happened if the right legislative process had been in place.
One of my concerns, for which I do not blame the Government—I blame us all in this House and society as a whole—is that we view road traffic issues with an attitude of, "There but for the grace of God go I." The simple fact is that 3,000 people die needlessly in this country each year as a result of road tragedies—many of them in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield. If one of us walked down Oxford street carrying a loaded shotgun that accidentally discharged, we would be prosecuted not for illegally or improperly carrying a gun but rightly for a charge relating to the resulting death. Yet we accept as a society that we can kill while handling a tonne of steel and face a charge that seldom relates to the consequent death of an individual. Had the Government pursued the arguments set out in the Law Commission's report No. 237, the family of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield may have been given some hope.
There is no easy solution. Having read very carefully the Law Commission's arguments and those presented by the Government on proving intent, I recognise that we are

not dealing with an area of the law that can be satisfactorily changed at the stroke of a pen; there is no quick fix to this very complicated issue. There is however a powerful argument that this place ought to give some leadership to ensure that, when cases as blatant as the one described by my hon. Friend come before the courts, something is done.
The principle of new clause 5 could provide the Attorney-General with some means of addressing the problem. I appreciate the difficulties facing him. To be totally fair to him—although the matter does not relate directly to the Bill—I should say that he courteously sent me a very gracious letter today apologising for a mistake in his Department. Although I appreciate that the Department is stretched, we cannot allow circumstances such as those we have just heard described to go unquestioned. We have a responsibility to people outside the House to get things right.
It has been said to me that, in the context of death on the road,
we have to bear in mind that if unduly severe penalties are related to specific traffic infringements, one of the dangers is that the courts will not press those charges for fear that there might be acquittal." —[Official Report, 22 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 8.]
Does the Home Secretary agree with that line of thought?

Mr. Howard: indicated dissent

Mr. Miller: I am pleased to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head in disagreement. That statement was made by the then Minister for Transport in London in response to my asking him whether he would join me in congratulating the Law Commission on its report. Although the then Minister acknowledged my interest in the matter, he went on to use the words that I have just quoted.
We need to take a lead. We cannot allow the confused and unsatisfactory system of charges and subsequent penalties associated with the 3,000 deaths to which I have referred to continue. Many victims' families have written to me as a result of my involvement with RoadPeace, setting out tragic concerns arising from matters that have occurred in coroners courts, magistrates courts and higher courts. The one theme that runs through all the letters is a general concern that the system does not seem to care because the deaths were a result of a road traffic "accident". Such incidents were not road traffic accidents; people were killed. We view death as a result of somebody accidentally discharging a shotgun differently. Why do we not take the same view when a death occurs on the road?
We have a general duty to look very carefully at the way in which lenient sentences are meted out and why there is a great tendency for the prosecution to press for a lesser charge due to the difficulties associated with proof of intent. There is a massive problem in the existing framework of law. I do not deny that we would have difficulties in trying to frame precise legislation around the Law Commission's report, but I think that we have a general duty to bring about such change.
I read at a service that was held by RoadPeace in November and met many families who are looking to the House to bring about the necessary changes so that they can at least feel that justice can be done.I appreciate entirely the efforts that have been undertaken by the


Department of Transport to achieve the most important thing—a reduction in the number of deaths in the first place—but given that many of the deaths occur in circumstances such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, we must not allow them to go unquestioned and simply be written off as yet another road traffic "accident".

Mr. Walter Sweeney: I intend to speak only briefly. First, I wish to commend the determination and perseverance of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) in his attempts to change the mind set of the Home Office and persuade it that it was appropriate to introduce a right of appeal against soft sentencing in certain specified circumstances. His success and the fact that the Government have legislated on that point have provided great reassurance to the public and improved the reputation of Parliament and of our judicial system. I hope that I will not embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham by mentioning the fact that the Boundary Commission has not smiled on him in his constituency. I hope that he will soon return to the House, because he has been an adornment to it.
New clause 5 is inappropriate and would impose an intolerable burden on the Attorney-General. I am not averse in principle to the extension of the right of appeal against soft sentences, but some other mechanism should be found. On new clauses 3 and 4, I fully endorse the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Even without any statutory duty, the Court of Appeal could have provided obiter dicta to help the lower courts in their task in the manner suggested by my hon. and learned Friend, but it did not do so. That is why Parliament is considering the Bill and that is why the Government thought it appropriate to introduce tough minimum sentences for persistent burglars, traffickers in hard drugs and violent offenders. If the Court of Appeal had addressed those problems, perhaps the legislation would not be necessary. It is patently obvious that it is necessary, but new clauses 3 and 4 are not necessary or appropriate.

Mr. Howard: We have had an interesting debate that has been marked by some moving contributions from the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).I shall return to their points in a moment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston may be counting his chickens prematurely.
The debate has been noticeable for the fact that it has evoked cross-party support from all quarters of the House, although not always explicitly expressed, for the proposition that prison works. I especially welcome the belated conversion of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) to that banner. He was robust in his acceptance of the relationship between the firmness with which the court at Hereford deals with offenders who appear before it and the excellent record on law and order in the city of Hereford. I was, however, alarmed by the emphasis that he placed on the seriousness with which the offence of sheep stealing had to be dealt with in Montgomeryshire. I hope that he was not making any distinction between sheep stealing in Montgomeryshire

and sheep stealing on Romney marsh. Had he made any such distinction, he would give great offence to many of my esteemed constituents.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Of course not.

Mr. Howard: I am glad that he does not pursue any such distinction.
I agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that lenient and inconsistent sentencing can undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is important—I have devoted much of my time at the Home Office to the issue—to achieve a situation in which criminals receive the punishments that are appropriate for their crimes and that, as far as possible, achieve consistency. That is exactly what the Bill is about.
We believe that the public need greater protection from certain carefully targeted categories of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders and that is why we proposed the introduction of mandatory sentences. The Labour party has refused to support mandatory sentences. We have been told this evening that we shall learn the Labour party's final position on minimum mandatory sentences in due course. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said that he does not know what will happen, but the Government have made their proposals clear for long enough and it would be nice to know what his position is on those proposals. However, we know that the hon. Gentleman has many audiences to please and is engaging in the Labour party's usual tactic of pretending to those various and inconsistent audiences that he will give them what they want.
Outside the categories set out in the Bill of serious violent and sexual crimes, house burglary and dealing in hard drugs, judges will continue to be free to exercise their discretion, but it is right that in exercising that discretion they should be guided by the higher courts. The lower courts already obtain assistance. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that the lower courts are, to some extent, assisted in sentencing by guidance given by the Court of Appeal through its judgments on the appropriate penalty range for particular offences. Indeed, that practice has been developed in recent years to a greater extent than previously. Court of Appeal guidelines have been particularly useful in ensuring that the courts take a more consistent view of certain offences and reflect levels of public concern in their sentencing practice.
I do not disagree with the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) that the Court of Appeal may not have gone far enough, but it is right to give it credit for the extent to which it has given guidance. I shall give a couple of examples. The 1986 guideline judgment in the case of Billam suggested starting points for sentences for rape and that case has had the effect of increasing significantly sentence lengths for rape. The case of Aramah, the judgment on which showed the appropriate penalties for offences involving the importation, supply and possession of class B drugs according to the scale of distribution and quantity of drugs involved, has also had an effect.
Currently, any Court of Appeal judgment in an appeal against sentence, whether it allows or dismisses the appeal, gives a clear sign of the opinion of the court on


the sentence passed in the lower court and explains the reasoning behind the decision. In that sense and to a significant extent, the judgments of the Court of Appeal are regarded as precedents for cases in which the circumstances are similar and the court can and does give opinions on appropriate sentence lengths for different categories of offence. There is also the Judicial Studies Board, and we should not overlook its role in disseminating Court of Appeal guidance to the courts and in training the judiciary.
I conclude that new clauses 3 and 4 are unnecessary. The Court of Appeal has the power to issue guidance and frequently does so. There may be scope for increasing the guidance that it issues, but it is not necessary to introduce the statutory duties contained in new clauses 3 and 4. They are cosmetic and would add little, if anything, to the existing powers of the court.

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the Home Secretary's charge that the new clauses are cosmetic when I wind up in a moment, but I wish to ask him why, if the new clauses are unnecessary in England, the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken a wholly different view on both the issues raised by our debate.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are significant differences between the legal systems in Scotland and in England and Wales. One of the most significant differences, which is relevant to this discussion of the issues, is the fact that the Scottish system is much smaller and fewer cases come to the court of appeal in Scotland. That fact has a considerable bearing on the different approach to the question there. Where there have been grounds for concern in particular areas, we have not hesitated to act; for example, through the power to appeal against unduly lenient sentences vested in my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the proposals for automatic life and mandatory minimum sentences in the Bill.
I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme, for Wakefield and for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us in moving terms about a particular case in her constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has acknowledged that, on the face of it, the sentence passed in that case appeared to be unduly lenient and he has accordingly referred the matter to the Court of Appeal. She said that she should not have needed to draw the case to his attention. In fact, I understand that the case was drawn to his attention by the Crown Prosecution Service as well as by the hon. Lady. I hope that it will provide her with some comfort to hear that even if the case had not come to her attention as the constituency Member of Parliament, it would have been drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend, who would have pursued it in the appropriate way.
There will be many cases that will cause anxiety and distress of the kind to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred. That is why it is so important that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General continues to have his power in that matter, and he has said that he intends to use the power in the case to which the hon. Lady referred.
The offence of causing death by dangerous driving can also be dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend, who has the power to refer to the Court of Appeal instances of unduly lenient sentences for death by dangerous driving, as well as for the new offence that we created of causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said that the House should give a lead to show the seriousness with which it takes those offences. I entirely agree with him about the seriousness of those offences, which give rise to a number of casualties on our roads. It is no comfort to those whose loved ones are the victims of events of that kind—I share his distaste at the use of the word "accident" in that context—that the numbers of deaths have been reducing over the years. They feel anguish at the fact that they have lost a loved one, and regrettably that anguish is sometimes compounded by an unduly lenient sentence.
The House recently created the entirely new offence of causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink, and it has doubled the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving from five to 10 years. The House has provided my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General with the power to appeal against lenient sentences passed for both those offences. It cannot be said that the House or the Government have failed to respond to those legitimate and understandable concerns. We have taken them seriously and we have responded in a practical way.
In a sense, the concerns illustrate the importance of the power that was given to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General by the 1988 Act—against, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members of all parties, the opposition of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Following the introduction of the provision, we have taken steady and measured steps to extend it by order as permitted by the legislation. In 1994, it was extended to cover offences of indecent assault, threats to kill and cruelty to a child, together with attempts to commit or incite the commission of those offences. In 1995, it was extended to refer sentences passed in fraud cases. The effect of paragraph 13 in schedule 4 will extend the power to include automatic life sentences and minimum sentences.
It is no use ignoring the present position, which is that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General personally consider every case. The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn and the speech that he made have shown not the slightest consideration of the practical implications of the changes that he proposes. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham for his persistence in securing the provision of the power in the first place in 1988.
8.45 pm
If the hon. Member for Blackburn is proposing a new clause in those terms, we need to know his position on this matter. Does he intend that the personal involvement of the Law Officers should continue? If so, the effect of the increased work load would mean that both the Law Officers would spend one third to one half of their entire working time simply considering such cases. Does he intend that some new arrangements should be put in place to take away the personal role of my right hon. and


learned Friend and my hon. and learned Friend in the matter? Perhaps there is a case for that, but if so we should be told what that case is and how the hon. Gentleman sees the new arrangements working. We also need to know how they would be paid for.
I am bound to say that the utter failure of the hon. Member for Blackburn even to address those fundamental questions in his speech is the most eloquent evidence we could have that the new clause—in common with his other new clauses—is a pure piece of cosmetics. We know where the hearts of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues lie in these matters. They acted on their instincts when they all trooped into the Lobby to oppose the introduction of the power. Their opposition was expressed in a fundamental way by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who said that he regarded the proposal as "wrong in principle".
We do not have to go back as far as 1988. Five years later, I announced that we intended to extend the right of appeal to all serious violent and sexual crimes, including child cruelty and indecent assault. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), no less, dismissed my proposal as a gimmick. That is the reality behind the position of the Labour party on those matters. Labour's attempts this evening to disguise that baggage are wholly unconvincing, and I invite the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Straw: We can always rely on the Secretary of State to lower the tone of good debates. Since he referred to the approach of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), I must point out that he should have taken the trouble to read a couple of columns further on in the speech made by my right hon. Friend in January 1988. Along with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and, I believe, almost all my hon. Friends, I am prepared to say that our anxieties about the effect of giving the Attorney-General the power to appeal in certain offences were misplaced, as it turned out. Those anxieties were widely expressed in the House—including by, for example, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
Happily, our concerns were misplaced and, in retrospect, we should have supported the measure back in 1988—just as the Secretary of State should have supported our proposals at that time to ban the sale of knives to children aged 16 and under and to ban the advertising of combat knives. He voted against those proposals. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said:
If we wish to change the system so that prosecution counsel become involved in suggestions about the length of sentence, we must go all the way and do what happens in other countries, where prosecution counsel have been known to suggest, after considering the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, that a long sentence would be inappropriate and a short sentence would be more correct." —[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 694.]
That shows that my right hon. Friend did not dismiss the idea of involvement by the prosecution but objected to the particular system that had been proposed.

Mr. Howard: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that he felt so passionately in 1988 about the need to ban the sale of knives to under-16-year-olds that he was not even present to vote for his party's amendment?

Mr. Straw: The Home Secretary has made that rather silly point before. Pairing was in operation at the time,

although it is not tonight. The more important point is that he and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends voted against the ban; had they voted in favour, there would have been a ban on the sale of knives to children under 16 not this year but nine years ago.
I listened with great care to the serious part—short though it was—of the Home Secretary's speech. I do not understand why he opposes our proposals in new clause 3, under which the Court of Appeal would be given a duty to issue guidance in respect of all the main categories of offence. He said that the court currently did that in respect of some offences, but I spelt out in my opening speech the serious criticism made by highly regarded academic observers of the court's practice, regarding the fact that, although there are guidelines in respect of certain offences, the court has not worked through the range of major offences and issued guidelines to cover them all. That was the Government's expectation in 1990 when they published the White Paper on the criminal justice system, but it has not happened.
It is therefore inappropriate for the Home Secretary complacently—unusually for him—to seek to excuse the Court of Appeal's practice on the ground that it has worked out all right, because all the evidence adduced both by him and by us is that the court has not been playing the role that the Government set out for it and that, as I understand from my reading of a great deal of research work, was accepted implicitly by senior members of the judiciary at the time.
The problem of the lack of guidance covering the range of offences has been well illustrated by many of the speeches that we have heard this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made an eloquent and moving speech about a constituent whose daughter had been killed in Liverpool as a result of appallingly reckless driving by an individual who had the most dreadful criminal record.
The Home Secretary was right to say that the offence for which the defendant in question was ultimately convicted is one on which the Attorney-General can exercise a right of appeal, but my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield also drew attention to the fact that the defendant had not only committed that dreadful offence but had been disqualified on 13 separate occasions as a result of serious driving offences and had previously been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, a conviction for which he received the risible sentence of 12 months' probation.
I do not believe that any sentencer considering the matter in the abstract would have said that it was appropriate to continue issuing disqualifications against that individual on the 10th, 11th and 12th convictions. It is my belief that anyone approaching the matter rationally would say that to continue disqualifying an individual who had already been disqualified two, three or four times for such an offence raised the most serious questions about enforcement and about whether there was any progression written into the sentencing system.
If the Home Secretary stood back for a moment, he might say that such a record was not only appalling for the individual defendant but raised serious questions about the practice of the courts. Many of the decisions would have been made by magistrates courts. For reasons to which the Home Secretary referred—we are concerned about the Attorney-General's work load—we did not


suggest in the new clauses that all offences should be the subject of potential appeal by the Attorney-General. That said, there is an even greater necessity for much clearer guidance from the Court of Appeal about the circumstances in which magistrates courts and Crown courts should stop issuing ridiculous and useless sentences of disqualification that, as anyone examining the record would know, were unlikely to be enforced.
I believe that the public understand the need not only for progression and consistency in sentencing but for machinery to ensure that such progression and consistency are far better enforced than at present. I do not know why we are arguing about that; it can stand entirely separately from the rest of the Bill's provisions.
The Magistrates Association has issued some guidance and I understand that the Lord Chief Justice attaches his name to it but, however worthy the association is, its guidance cannot carry the weight of guidance promulgated by the Court of Appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield pointed out a major defect in the current arrangements and the Home Secretary has not given a proper answer.
There is another defect in that, at the moment, even if the Court of Appeal were more willing to issue guidance judgments, such issuing depends on the happenstance of there being a suitable appeal. Our proposals would not require that happenstance but would place an additional statutory duty on the Court of Appeal to act proactively and issue guidance to cover the major crimes that are dealt with not only in the Crown court but in magistrates courts.
It is worth remembering that, of the convicted individuals who go to prison, 55 per cent. have been sentenced by the magistrates courts. Those courts do not deal only with trivial matters; they deal with important issues, especially in relation to either-way offences.
On the parallel with Scotland, I accept, as does everyone else, that the Scottish legal system is different from that in England and Wales. It is entirely right that the Scottish legal system should be determined by what is right for Scotland. The Scottish system palpably operates more efficiently than that in England and Wales. Cases get to court much more quickly and they are disposed of more rapidly.
We also know that the Secretary of State for Scotland proposed for Scotland a year and a half ago—it has now passed into law—exactly the same power that we propose for England. When I put to the Home Secretary the fact that the Scottish appeal court has a power—which is almost the same thing as a duty—to issue sentencing guidance, all he could say was that the two systems were different. It is clear from the 'White Paper that that power will be used. The Secretary of State cannot explain why that system is appropriate for Scotland but not for England.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has just acknowledged that the court of appeal in Scotland has a power. The whole thrust of my argument was that the Court of Appeal in England already has the power to issue guidance; it does not need a specific statutory power to

issue it. The argument is about whether it should be under a duty to do so and, for the reasons that I gave, I do not believe that it is necessary.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State is wrong. If he looks at the power given to the appeal court in Scotland under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland refers in paragraph 8.19 of his White Paper, he will see that the power given to the court of appeal in Scotland is different from and, I understand, significantly wider than, the power that the Court of Appeal in England has taken unto itself. He cannot get away from the fact that the Court of Appeal in England, unlike the Scottish appeal court, has not exercised its powers as it should have.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill was about consistency and that it targeted specific offences. Apart from those affected by clause 1, which is about indeterminate life sentences, the Bill targets two offences from the whole criminal calendar: domestic burglary and trafficking in class A drugs. It targets those offences only where there has been a third or subsequent conviction. That is a tiny proportion of the totality of offences that come before magistrates courts or Crown courts for sentencing. Even if the Bill goes through unamended—which, as the Government keep amending it, remains a large question—it will scarcely touch the inconsistency and lack of progression of which the Secretary of State has made so much in the months since he published his crime White Paper. It will leave largely untouched the inconsistency and lack of progression to which I referred in the paper that I published in March and again this evening.
New clause 3 would put a duty on the Court of Appeal to issue sentencing guidance. It appears from the debate that that proposal has wide support in the House. I am sorry that the Government, for the most spurious and artificial reasons, have chosen to oppose it. They will rue the day, because they will be responsible for the lack of progression and consistency in sentencing and for the sort of appalling situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield mentioned. We wish to press new clause 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 283.

Division No. 36]
[9.1 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Benton, Joe


Adams, Mrs Irene
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Boateng, Paul


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Ashdown, Paddy
Burden, Richard


Ashton, Joseph
Byers, Stephen


Austin-Walker, John
Cabom, Richard


Barnes, Harry
Callaghan, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Battle, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Beith, A J
Campbell-Savours, D N


Bell, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Tony
Cann, Jamie


Bennett, Andrew F
Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)






Chidgey, David
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jamieson, David


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Connarty, Michael
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Corston, Ms Jean
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Cummings, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Kaufman, Gerald


Dalyell, Tam
Keen, Alan


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Davidson, Ian
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Denham, John
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Dixon, Don
Litheriand, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eagle, Ms Angela
Loyden, Eddie


Eastham, Ken
Lynne, Ms Liz


Ennis, Jeff
McAvoy, Thomas


Etherington, Bill
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Macdonald, Calum


Fatchett, Derek
McFall, John


Faulds, Andrew
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McLeish, Henry


Fisher, Mark
McNamara, Kevin


Flynn, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Foster, Derek
McWilliam, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Madden, Max


Foulkes, George
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Fraser, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Galbraith, Sam
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Michael


Garrett, John
Meale, Alan


George, Bruce
Michael, Alun


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gilbert, Dr John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Gunnell, John
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Henderson, Doug
Olner, Bill


Heppell, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Orme, Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Pearson, Ian


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Pendry, Tom


Hoey, Kate
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Howells, Dr Kim
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn





Purchase, Ken
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Rendel, David
Thumham, Peter


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Timms, Stephen


Rogers, Allan
Tipping, Paddy


Rooker, Jeff
Trickett, Jon


Rooney, Terry
Tyler, Paul


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted
Walker, Sir Harold


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Chris (Islington S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Worthington, Tony


Steel, Sir David
Wright, Dr Tony


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Straw, Jack
Mr. David Clelland.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Aitken, Jonathan
Churchill, Mr


Alexander, Richard
Clappison, James


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Coe, Sebastian


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert
Congdon, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cope, Sir John


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Couchman, James


Bates, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Curry, David


Bellingham, Henry
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Day, Stephen


Biffen, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Body, Sir Richard
Devlin, Tim


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan Smith, lain


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dykes, Hugh


Bowis, John
Elletson, Harold


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Emery, Sir Peter


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Butterfill, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Fowler, Sir Norman


Carrington, Matthew
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carttiss, Michael
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Cash, William
Freeman, Roger






French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fry, Sir Peter
Maginnis, Ken


Gale, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gallie, Phil
Malone, Gerald


Garnier, Edward
Mans, Keith


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Gummer, John
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Paice, James


Hendry, Charles
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heseltine, Michael
Patten, John


Hicks, Sir Robert
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Higgins, Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Pickles, Eric


Horam, John
Porter, David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Portillo, Michael


Howard, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Hurd, Douglas
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jack, Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bemard (Colchester N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jessel, Toby
Rowe, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rumbold, Dame Angela


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sackville, Tom


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Jopling, Michael
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Tom
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sims, Sir Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lamont, Norman
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lilley, Peter
Stanley, Sir John


Lord, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan


MacGregor, John
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter





Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waller, Gary


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Ward, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Waterson, Nigel


Thomason, Roy
Watts, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Sir Raymond



Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) 
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John 


Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


 Tracey, Richard
Wilshire, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Trotter, Neville
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Young, Sir George


Viggers, Peter



Waldegrave, William
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 7

TESTING AND TREATMENT ORDER

'.The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall be amended in Schedule 1A by adding the following paragraph—

"7.(1) This paragraph applies where a court proposing to make a probation order or a combination order is satisfied—

(a) that the offender is using a Class A drug;
(b) that his use caused or contributed to the offence in respect of which the order is proposed to be made; and
(c) that his use is such as may be susceptible to treatment.

(2) The court shall not form such an opinion as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above unless it has obtained a pre-sentence report and a drugs test.
(3) The probation order or combination order shall, subject to sub-paragraph (6) below, include a requirement that the offender shall submit to drug testing and drug abuse treatment by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualification or experience with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's drug use.
(4) The testing required by such an order and by subparagraph (2) above shall be by provision of a sample of urine for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has any drugs in his body.
(5) The treatment required by any such order shall be such one of the following kinds of treatment as may be specified in the order—

(a) treatment as a resident in such institution or place as may be specified in the order;
(b) treatment as a non-resident in or at such institution or place as may be so specified: or
(c) treatment by or under the direction of such person having the necessary qualifications or experience as may be so specified.

(6) A court shall not by virtue of this paragraph include in a probation or combination order a requirement that the offender shall submit to testing or treatment for his drug use unless it considers that such a requirement is appropriate in all the circumstances and it is satisfied that the arrangements have been made for the testing and treatment intended to be specified in the order.
(7) The court shall review the offender's progress four weeks after making the order, and thereafter at intervals of not more than four weeks and not more than four months.
(8) While the offender is under treatment as a resident in pursuance of a requirement of the probation or combination order, the probation officer responsible for his supervision


shall carry out the supervision to such an extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order.
(9) Where the person by whom or under whose direction an offender is being treated for dependency is of the opinion that part of the treatment can be better or more conveniently given in or at an institution or place which—

(a) is not specified in the order; and
(b) is one in or at which the treatment of the offender will be given by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience.

he may make arrangements for him to be treated accordingly.
(10) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in subparagraph (9) above are made for the treatment of an offender—

(a) the person by whom the arrangements are made shall give notice in writing to the probation officer responsible for the supervision of the offender, specifying the institutions or place in or at which the treatment is to be carried out; and
(b) the treatment provided for by the arrangements shall be deemed to be treatment to which he is required to submit in pursuance of the probation or combination order.".'. — [Mr. George Howarth.]


Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Court to be aware of provision in custody for certain dependent offenders—
'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be dependent on drugs or alcohol an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.'.

Mr. Howarth: In Committee, we debated a new clause that had a similar effect to new clause 7, which would allow for the rehabilitation and treatment of problem drug users to be recommended as part of a sentence. New clause 13 would be consequential on new clause 7 and would empower the courts to recognise that a treatment and testing order was available in those circumstances.
I suspect that the Minister will argue that the new clause is unnecessary—that is what he said in Committee when he opposed the similar proposal—but evidence suggests that we need treatment and testing orders because the current arrangements do not serve us well. We seek an effective course of action that is permissive rather than prescriptive. The courts should have the option of imposing treatment alongside punishment as an effective way to deal with drug abuse and drug-related crime. We want to present the courts and offenders not with a soft option, but with a means of providing a system that deters and deals with drug abuse and drug-related offending.
The new clause is based on Labour's treatment and testing programmes in a document entitled "Breaking the Vicious Circle", launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) during our conference in October. A number of arguments can be used to support the proposals. First, treatment is a humanitarian

imperative, not in the sense that it lets people off or gives them a way out of proper punishment but because it takes effective action to deal with the causes of other kinds of offending behaviour.
Secondly, a great deal of crime is drug driven. If we can remove the incentive to steal and get involved in crime because people are no longer dependent on drugs, we shall make an important contribution. Good empirical evidence suggests that approximately half of all property crime—burglary and other acquisitive crime—is committed by people seeking to feed their drug habit. The Metropolitan police commissioner recently estimated that, in his police area, the true figure is more like 60 per cent. —so in our capital city and elsewhere there is a powerful incentive to deal more coherently with the cause as well as the effect of drug-related crime and drug offences.
Another important argument in this context is that drugs in prisons are closely associated with prison disturbances. Drug treatment would reduce demand in prison. I shall talk later about the effects of mandatory drug testing, but there can be no doubt, not least on the basis of the reports of Her Majesty's inspector of prisons, that there are far too many drugs in our prison system and that drugs can lead to disorderly behaviour. They lead to offences within the prison system and can lead to serious disturbances. We may deal later with the statistics that underpin those arguments.
Mandatory drug testing has revealed a steady increase in hard drugs—opiate-based drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine—during 1996. In other words, drug abuse in prisons has shifted away from cannabis to harder drugs.
The Government seem to have no information on the amount of time that prisoners spend in drug rehabilitation. The source for that observation is the Official Report of 29 November 1996, columns 450–52. The Government cannot evaluate how much of a prisoner's period of incarceration might be devoted to drug rehabilitation in appropriate cases. It is important for us to understand the relationship between treatment, offending and drug abuse.
There is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the time spent in rehabilitation in prison is decreasing. That might result from the reductions in expenditure that have recently taken place in the Prison Service, but we would need to study a great deal more evidence before arriving at that conclusion.
There are two additional reasons why the new clause merits support. Before I deal with those, it is important to make the point that all drug abuse, whether it takes place in prisons, in nightclubs, in the streets or in people's homes, is wrong. It is right and proper for us to maintain that position whether we are dealing with cannabis or with harder drugs. It is right that those who are apprehended for trading in drugs or using them are properly punished; it is also right that where drug abuse is a habitual part of people's lives, treatment should be available, as well as punishment. The siren voices calling for decriminalisation or a more permissive attitude towards drug abuse will in the long run serve neither those who are caught up in the vicious cycle of drug abuse, nor society in the wider context. They may believe that there is a humanitarian aspect to their argument, but it dissolves on closer examination.
I mentioned two other reasons for supporting the new clause. The first is the point made by Justice—not an organisation with which I always agree—that drug


rehabilitation and treatment may no longer be an option under the Bill. If that argument can be sustained, the new clause would rectify such an omission by setting out in detail where the House stands.
Secondly, if direction on treatment were available in guidance issued by the Home Office, judicial discretion through the courts could be maintained, at least in part. That would mean that the courts could make clear judgments about the most appropriate way of dealing with individual cases.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), speaking from his experience as a recorder at Hereford Crown court, said that in some cases the courts find it difficult to deal with drug-related offences because of the many complicating factors involved. Home Office direction would make life easier for those in the courts who deal with such cases.
Since March 1996, when mandatory drug testing was introduced in all prisons—we agreed with that move—the scale of drug abuse in prisons has become clear. Initial conclusions show a disturbing shift away from cannabis use—which is wrong and unacceptable—to harder forms of drugs, particularly opiates. That shift is evidenced by a number of factors. Since the introduction of mandatory drug testing in prisons—I shall cite the statistics in a moment—there has been a shift from cannabis interceptions to interceptions of various forms of opiate.
The Minister and I have disagreed about the figures in the past, but I hope that we shall agree on a conclusion tonight. One of the reasons for the shift is that cannabis remains detectable in the blood for up to 28 days, whereas opiates remain detectable for only two to four days. It has been claimed that prisoners are switching from cannabis to opiates to evade detection. Statistics bear out that claim, and there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence that that is occurring in the prison system. In the normal course of my duties as a shadow home affairs spokesman, I visit many prisons where people tell me about that trend.
9.30 pm
Between 1 March 1996 and 30 September 1996, the percentage of random drug tests showing positive for opiates increased from 5.94 per cent. to 6.35 per cent. If my mathematics have not let me down, that represents an increase of about 7 per cent. in the number of prisoners testing positive for opiates. If we project that figure on to the entire prison population, the number of prisoners regularly using opiates has increased from 3,192 to 3,595.
The fact that prisoners change to hard drugs to escape detection suggests that the figures underestimate the extent of opiate use. I received a letter today from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, Sir David Ramsbotham, who said:
Like so many things connected with the drugs scene, I am suspicious of all statistics … I expect that it"—
he is referring to the use of heroin in prisons—
is considerably higher than the figures disclosed.
That is an authoritative source in support of my argument, and it is a view based on evidence gathered during recent prison inspections. During an interview for the journal Focus, the Minister of State who has responsibility for the

Prison Service refused to acknowledge the problem of a shift in usage from cannabis to harder drugs in prisons. She said:
there is precious little evidence that this shift to opiate use is happening.
I do not wish to be disrespectful to the hon. Lady—perhaps I shall be if I am pushed hard enough—but I would rather accept the evidence of the chief inspector of prisons, who speaks to the relevant people and has more experience and greater exposure to what is occurring in the prison system, than the hon. Lady's comments during an interview.
We are concerned about the perceived move from abuse of cannabis—which is bad enough-to harder drugs. We must face the fact that many prisoners—particularly younger inmates—who at present take no drugs, or who use cannabis, may begin to take harder drugs during their period of incarceration. If that is what is going on, we should be very concerned indeed. One reason why the new clause should be given a fair wind and accepted is that such factors, and the ability to treat people while they are in the prison system, should be given greater prominence.
Apart from the cost of administering mandatory drugs testing in the Prison Service, each positive test results in an additional number of days in prison. There was a total of 7,618 such punishments between March and September of last year, which led to an extra 112,354 days in prison. There is nothing wrong with that. That was the system that was introduced, we supported it, and if people are going to get involved in drug abuse, they must be prepared to accept the consequences. If we could treat them and stop them from abusing drugs while in the prison system, however, that would prevent their serving extra days in prison. It would also yield savings to the Treasury.
I estimate that, at an average cost of about £400 per prisoner per week, the expenditure arising from extra days in prison has amounted to more than £864,000 since March 1996. It is a very large amount. If that is added to the initial start-up costs, which were assessed at £948,840, we realise that the amounts involved are substantial. In addition, each test costs, on average, £45.52—and between March and September there were 47,425 tests. The running costs of the tests alone are £2,158,786. The costs of the problem are enormous and it is in everybody's interest, not least the Exchequer, that we get to grips with it.
We have consistently argued the case for rehabilitation of drug users. There are examples of good practice, not least of which is the excellent scheme at Her Majesty's prison Downview, of which I shall say a little more later. I have had the opportunity to visit it. If the Under-Secretary has not been there to see what goes on, I suggest that he does so. One thing that is abundantly clear is that if we deal with those who are convicted of drugs or drug-related offences by treating them, there is a strong possibility that that takes away the incentive to get involved in drug abuse in future. That has to be worth while.
The Government, however, appear to have little if any knowledge of the amount of drug rehabilitation that occurs in the Prison Service. When we ask them questions about it, they seemed to confuse rehabilitation and detoxification and have information only about


detoxification which, although worth while, is not the whole answer to the problem. It is clear that we need a system that does not encourage prisoners who use soft drugs to take harder drugs, or lead those who take no drugs to start taking harder drugs.
If we are to make progress, mandatory drugs testing, although welcome and necessary, is inadequate to deal with the problem. Under the current system, there is a danger that we will send the small-time cannabis user and dealer to prison and release him seven years later as a confirmed heroin addict. The need for an option to include mandatory treatment is therefore obvious.
There is international evidence to support the claims that I am making. In California, an evaluation of the FIRST—fast, intensive, report, supervision and treatment—programme, which reviewed the work of the drug court programme in Oakland, showed impressive savings in terms of custody costs to the Alameda county sheriff's department. Last October,I visited Alameda county, which has a drug court programme. We could replicate elements of that interesting experiment in our system. The evaluation showed that the average number of arrests per defendant during the three-year period following the arraignment was reduced by about 40 per cent. if they had been through the drug court process. A cost-benefit analysis from the same report showed that those who had been diverted from custody into treatment spent approximately 34,000 fewer days in custody.
I also saw what was being done in Miami. An evaluation of the drug court in Dade county suggested that closely monitored drug treatment had extremely positive results. A comparison of defendants who had been in the programme with similar defendants who had not drew some interesting and useful conclusions. Defendants in the programme had lower incarceration rates, less frequent re-arrests and longer times before re-arrest—about three times as long. Clearly, the experiments in diversion are working in the state of Miami.
A study of the intensive, 18-month programme that is run by Osteraker prison in Sweden showed significantly reduced rates of recidivism and drug relapse since 1979, when the scheme was introduced. A 1992 study showed that recidivism over a six-year period was 58 per cent. higher in a control group than it was in a group of people participating in the programme.
Her Majesty's prison Downview provides a more local example. The chief inspector of prisons said:
We are particularly impressed by the"—
drug rehabilitation—
scheme at Downview which has developed a special residential programme for drug users in conjunction with the Addictive Diseases Trust".
The evidence for that conclusion is in a report produced in March 1996—which the Home Office has received—entitled "The ADT Drug Treatment Programme at HMP Downview". That study found that applicants had been dependent on drugs for an average of nine years, so they were well-established drug users of one kind or another. It also found that the overwhelming majority of applicants identified their habit as the main cause of their offending, whatever its precise nature. All but one of the sample studied had stayed drug-free since joining the programme's pre-admission group. That finding was supported by the use of drug tests, which I think were

voluntary. Moreover, 21 of the 23 graduates of the programme had not used drugs since completing the programme.
The evidence in support of the new clause is overwhelming. When we debated this matter in Committee, the Minister said that such provision was unnecessary, and cited Downview as evidence that such schemes already exist. The existing programmes and the action that is being taken, welcome though they are, are merely nibbling at the edges. An increasing number of drug-dependent criminals find their way into the prison system and end up in a worse state by the time they finish their sentences. That is unacceptable, it is certainly not cost-effective, and it is not the way in which the general public expect the prison system to work.
We offer an option for—not a compulsion on—the courts. Courts should take into account the fact that drug abuse is part of the crime, and that the offender is involved in crime because he is also involved in drug abuse. In suitable cases, defendants could be diverted into treatment programmes either within the prison system or outside it if appropriate. That has to be a good move. The Minister will have to produce some powerful arguments to convince me—and, I hope, the House—that new clause 7 is not worthy of support.It represents a better way forward and if he has no solid arguments against it, I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Sackville: The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is absolutely right to sing the praises of drug treatment as an alternative to prison and to say that there should be such treatment in prison, for all the reasons that he set out. However, he was also right to predict that I would say that the new clause was unnecessary, for the very simple reason that schedule 1A to the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973, supported by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, provides all the necessary legislation to give courts the power to pass community sentences that are conditional upon following drug treatment. It is all there and nothing more needs to be added to the statute book.
There are many examples. The most significant is in Plymouth, where the Devon probation service is running a drug assessment and stabilisation programme. If the hon. Gentleman has not already done so, I recommend that he should see it. The probation service has purchased 100 places on a drug treatment programme. When I visited it, 94 of those places were taken up by individuals who had not gone to prison, but who had been given a community sentence, with drug treatment provided immediately—hence the necessity to purchase those places—by the local community drug service.
The scheme has proved successful. Very few have dropped out and breached their community sentence. It appeared that all those who were on the programme were not simply avoiding prison, but wanted to get off drugs and had been offered an opportunity to do so. Therefore, they had a dual motive.
As I said, the legislation is already in place. We have to persuade the courts, the police, probation and health services and other drug treatment providers to get together in such a way that the courts would have the confidence to say that although certain individuals would normally be sent to prison, because they appeared willing to follow


a drug treatment programme, society would be better served if they stayed out of prison. Those individuals would probably reduce their offending or eradicate it altogether and have a good chance of remaining off drugs. We want to encourage that. All the drug action teams around the country should be encouraging exactly those arrangements between the courts, the probation service and local drag treatment, perhaps through local health authorities. I make that point whenever I visit drug action teams.
I do not entirely understand a number of points in the new clause. For example, the hon. Gentleman proposes that only those who have been involved with class A drugs should receive the sentence envisaged in the new clause. However, when not injected, amphetamines are class B drugs, so an entire category of drug users who, according to some surveys, account for some 30 per cent. of local offenders, would be excluded. There are a number of reasons why the new clause is unsatisfactory, but it is particularly unsatisfactory because the relevant legislation is already on the statute book.
The hon. Gentleman rightly says that drug treatment should be available in prisons and proposes that courts should be able to demand some assessment of what drug treatment is available. That certainly should not be a major part of sentencing policy. Sentencing should be performed on the basis of the seriousness of the crime. It is up to the Prison Service to decide how to allocate prisoners and where they should be treated.
The hon. Gentleman may think that the new clause would stimulate the provision of more drug treatment in prisons, but there has already been great progress. There are now between 50 and 60 schemes in prisons. He mentioned one of the schemes, at Downview. I visited one of its sister schemes, at Pentonville, which is also run on the 12-steps basis by the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—although, as he said, it was previously known as the Addictive Diseases Trust. Those prisoners—some of whom have been taking drugs for years, literally in and out of prison—seem to have the expectation of getting off drugs. Such schemes should be encouraged.
As I said, there has been an enormous growth in the number and variety of drug treatment schemes offered in prisons. Treatment has been stimulated further by mandatory drug testing in prisons. However, it is not necessarily possible to accelerate further the process. We must find drug treatment schemes that are accepted by staff and, ultimately, by prisoners—because prisoners who have drug treatment or who enter drug-free wings are essentially volunteers. That process is already happening.
I do not want to sound complacent, because for years there was very little progress on drug treatment in prisons. We witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of people who may not have been drug users entering prison, but who came out, typically, as heroin addicts. The growth in treatment schemes is welcome.
In his speech, the hon. Gentleman made a point that he has already made in Committee and elsewhere, about the apparent switch from cannabis use to heroin and other opiate use in prisons. As he said, according to the best figures available, opiate use is now at 7 or 8 per cent. Some of the increase may be due—I believe that it is a misconception—to prisoners' belief that it is easier to get

away with opiate use. The figures are skewed also because one would have to be an extremely heavy cannabis user to reach the 28-day mark mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is likely that the trend has been affected more by the unfortunate fact that there is a great deal of cheap heroin around.

Mr. George Howarth: The Minister has made that point before, and I know that he has received medical advice to support it. I have taken a fairly broad range of medical advice on the matter, and I should tell him that the issue is contentious. He may have received such advice, but many experts would disagree strongly with it.

Mr. Sackville: I agree that a switch from one drug to any other drug in prisons—particularly a switch from cannabis to opiates—is worrying. Drug use is a health matter that greatly concerns the Government, and much is being done to reduce such use in prisons. However, drug use is a matter not only of treatment but of stopping drugs from getting into prisons—by supervising visits, by imposing sanctions against those found to be bringing drugs into prisons and by using a series of new disciplinary offences and practices, which is already happening in prisons.
Although the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and I do not disagree on the basics, I think that new clause 7 is mainly a device to make some virtuous-sounding remarks on the problem of drugs in prisons. I agree with those remarks, but I do not believe that his new clause adds anything to action that is already being taken. Therefore, I cannot advise the House to accept it.

Mr. Soley: That was one of the most incredibly complacent speeches that I have heard for many years from a Home Office Minister. Any visitor from outer space who examined the Home Office's own research would know without a shadow of a doubt that most offences committed in the United Kingdom are committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs. It is high time that we started taking the matter more seriously.

Mr. Sackville: Nothing that I have said contradicts that proposition.

Mr. Soley: Precisely. Then let us do something about it. That is what I am arguing for.
The Minister should focus on new clause 13, because it is very important. With so many offences being committed by people under the influence of alcohol or drugs, why do we not have a range of treatments available in every prison in Britain? The Minister must know as well as I do that, often, people with a history of drug or alcohol abuse are discharged from prison with nowhere to go. The first decision that they have to make is whether to turn left or right when they get outside the prison gate.
I shall tell the Minister a true story drawn from my experience as a probation officer. I know that similar situations occur today. John Healey wrote a book on alcohol abuse, called "The Grass Arena", which was then made into a BBC 2 film that won an award at the Edinburgh festival. He was in and out of prison over and over. At that time—the 1970s—only limited alcohol abuse programmes were available in prison, but at least we had a significant number of programmes outside


prison. Those programmes—or at least those funded by public expenditure—have been reduced by the Government. We tried to fit an offender coming out of prison into one of those programmes so that, even if they had accommodation and job problems, they had somewhere to go.
On one of the occasions related in his book, which is one of the most powerful books written about a vagrant alcoholic and how to get off drink—perhaps the Minister ought to read it to understand the problem—John Healey wrote to me from prison. I had spoken in court, suggesting that he should have a prison sentence to keep him there until the new year so that I could then get him into the Lee clinic in Oxfordshire, which provided one of the best treatment programmes for alcoholics.
However, the court and I had miscalculated the remission period. The result was that I suddenly got a desperate letter from Mr. Healey, saying that he would be released on Christmas eve. We had nowhere to put him and no treatment facilities. He had had no treatment for alcohol abuse during his three months in prison. At that time, the best that a prisoner could get was an offer of a place on the alcohol abuse programme.
I went to see the prison governor, who rightly pointed out that he could not keep Mr. Healey in prison until the new year. The only way to get round the problem, as the governor suggested, was for Mr. Healey to commit a minor offence in prison, so that the governor could give him an extra seven days and keep him in until the new year. Mr. Healey wanted to be kept in so that he could take advantage of the Lee clinic programme.
That was a deeply unsatisfactory solution, so we trawled through Mr. Healey's many previous convictions, among which was an unpaid fine. I went back to the court and asked the magistrate to give seven days in lieu of that unpaid fine. The magistrate did so and we kept John Healey in prison until 2 January.
Such situations still occur. I am not asking for a grand scheme to keep people in prison beyond the court's sentence, but if the appropriate treatment facilities were available in prison, we would be able to spot the problem long before it arose, not a week or two before the discharge date.
There is no coherent overall strategy on drug or alcohol treatment in prison, but drugs and alcohol are two of the major causes—if not the major causes—of crime in Britain. For the Minister to say that we already have enough programmes in place is unadulterated nonsense. Those programmes are not there. People are being discharged without any treatment.
Drug abuse and alcohol abuse are notoriously difficult to treat in or out of prison. It is no good just saying that we know that a particular offender has a drug or alcohol problem, so we should encourage them to join Alcoholics Anonymous or another programme. The problem needs to be worked on over a long period, perhaps over several prison sentences.
The Minister ought to recognise that new clause 13 offers an opportunity to rethink the way in which we address problems concerning addiction in our prisons—indeed, the way in which we address an abuse of a substance, be it alcohol or drugs, which leads to repeated patterns of offending. We ought to consider the matter again, so that we can direct a person to an appropriate treatment regime in prison.
Until we reach the stage where, after the sentencing procedure and after a person has been sentenced to imprisonment, we are able to try one type of regime for one person and recognise that we might have to try a number of different treatment programmes or patterns for a particular individual—instead of relying on one and giving up if it fails—nobody, but nobody, can say that we are taking the problem seriously.
The Government are yet again about pretending that they are doing something about crime while literally ignoring all its causes. As long as they go on doing that, they will continue to preside over a disastrous increase in crime—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH LEGAL SERVICES OMBUDSMAN AND COMMISSIONER FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN SCOTLAND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.